Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment, on 17th December, 1943, for the Christmas Recess—met, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATHS OF MEMBERS

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the deaths of George Ridley, Esquire, Member for the County of Derby (Clay Cross Division), and Lieut.-Colonel Frank Frederick Alexander Heilgers, Member for the County of Suffolk (Bury St. Edmunds Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Members.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:

Anglesey County Council (Water, &amp;c.).
Beckett Hospital and Dispensary, Barnsley.
Chesterfield and Bolsover Water.
City of London (Various Powers).
Connahs Quay Gas.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation (Air Transport).
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation (Development, &amp;c.).

London and North Eastern Railway.
Middlesex County Council.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction.
Yorkshire Registries (West Riding) Amendment.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely:

Ascot District Gas and Electricity Company.
Derwent Valley Water.
Gillingham Corporation.
Herts and Essex Water.
Jewish Colonization Association.
London Midland and Scottish Railway (Canals).
Loughborough Corporation.
People's Dispensary for Sick Animals of the Poor.
Wisbech Corporation.

And they have certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following case, namely:

London Midland and Scottish Railway.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords]

STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating


in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

London Midland and Scottish Railway. [Lords.]

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Electricity Distribution (Publicity)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, whether he is aware that Messrs. Edmondsons have announced that they are to spend £20,000 on publicity in favour of private enterprise in electricity distribution; and whether he will take all steps necessary to prevent public utility companies diverting funds available for reducing charges to consumers for political purposes.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The answer to the first part of the Question is, No, Sir. As regards the second part, reasonable expenditure on publicity is legitimate and common practice in the case of trading concerns, including public utility undertakings, and the matter does not appear to call for any action on my part.

Mr. Parker: Would it be in order for municipalities also to advertise in favour of public enterprise in electricity, and would a body like British Overseas Airways Corporation, Ltd., be in order in advertising in favour of maintaining a public service of airways?

Major Lloyd George: I could not answer the second part of the question. The answer to the first part is that it would be a matter for the local authority itself.

Mr. Colegate: Is it not the case that the Government are spending large sums on publicity for their products?

Severn Barrage

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he expects to be in a position to announce the decision of the Government regarding the Severn Barrage.

Major Lloyd George: As I informed the House on 30th November last, I have appointed a small Technical Committee to review the conclusions of the Severn Barrage Committee. The investigation is being undertaken by this Committee as a matter of urgency, but until they report and the Government have had an opportunity of considering their Report, I am afraid that no decision on policy can be given.

Colonel Evans: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend get in touch with the chairman and see whether he has any indication that could be passed on to the House of the probable date when the Report will be received?

Major Lloyd George: I should be glad to do that, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will wait a little, as they have not been at it very long.

Electricity Supplies (War Production Factories)

Mr. Kendall: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what instructions have been given to electricity companies to cut off light and power from war production factories without any warning.

Major Lloyd George: Conditions arising from the war produce from time to time local dislocations of electricity supply which, unless dealt with promptly by reducing the demand on the affected sections, may set up a cumulative disturbance, resulting in widespread stoppage of supplies. To guard against this, arrangements have been made whereby each undertaker, on receipt of instructions, switches out a proportion of his consumers (normally not exceeding 10 per cent.). The selection of the consumers is made by the undertaker, subject to a general direction that supplies to high priority consumers named by regional production boards must be maintained to the fullest possible extent.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it correct, as stated in the Question, that, without any warning to the consumer, electrical power is cut off?

Major Lloyd George: I think that is so. It is not possible always to give a warning. For instance, if a barrage balloon cable fouls a high tension cable, it may be necessary to cut off the electricity without warning.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not the case that cutting off electricity supplies without warning may involve much damage and danger to life, and will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman avoid that if possible?

Major Lloyd George: As I pointed out, it is done only in very exceptional cases. It is due to circumstances over which we have no control, for instance, as I have mentioned, the fouling of a high tension cable and a barrage balloon cable.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Domestic Supplies (Allocation)

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will authorise local fuel overseers to use their discretion in making a slight increase in the monthly allocation of coal to householders without gas and who were unable to lay in coal in the summer months, either owing to lack of storage space or because, to the knowledge of the fuel overseer, the local merchant was unable to supply coal at the time.

Major Lloyd George: For the reasons given in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) on 23rd November last, I can hold out no hope of any relaxation in existing restrictions on the supply of coal to the domestic market. Local fuel overseers, however, are authorised to grant additional licences where necessary on account of sickness, or where there is exceptional need combined with the complete absence of alternative fuels.

Sir A. Knox: Will a householder who has no gas appliances be authorised, under this system, to obtain extra coal if he requires it?

Major Lloyd George: If he can persuade the fuel overseer as to the need for it, I think yes.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction among consumers of coal who have not received their December supply, although it was ordered well in advance, and as a result they have lost the opportunity of obtaining extra coal and have only the January amount supplied?

Major Lloyd George: I would be very glad if the hon. Gentleman would communicate with me on that point.

Colliery Workers (Housing)

Mr. Colegate: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to make available for colliery workers houses built or owned by colliery companies and at present occupied by families not engaged in the coal industry.

Major Lloyd George: The means to make available for mineworkers colliery houses at present occupied by families not engaged in the mining industry rest with the colliery companies which own the houses. My Ministry, through its regional offices, does, however, keep in close contact with the local offices of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health where difficulties in finding accommodation for mineworkers occur.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Laundry Losses

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has now investigated the complaints brought against a certain laundry, of which he has been informed, by 327 Oxford residents compulsorily assigned to this firm under the zoning scheme; and what steps have been taken to remedy the deficiencies in the service offered by this laundry;
(2) what steps he proposes to take to compensate customers of a certain laundry, of which he has been informed, to which they were compulsorily assigned under the zoning scheme, either by way of replacement or cash and coupons for the seven or eight per cent. loss of garments they sustained during the operation of the scheme.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): The Oxford laundry zoning scheme has recently been modified. The laundry to which the Questions refer is now concentrating on work for the Forces. I regret that I cannot make special arrangements for replacement, whether by cash or coupons, of articles unfortunately lost in this particular case.

Mr. Hogg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the laundry in question managed to lose between 7 and 8 per cent. of its total wash every week, and is he also


aware that the laundry was compulsorily allocated to its customers? Does he not think himself responsible, therefore, for the loss?

Sir Herbert Williams: Is this another lost cause for Oxford?

Mr. Hogg: Lost drawers.

Mr. Dalton: I regret very much the lost drawers, but I cannot regard myself as being personally responsible for one of these minor mishaps in a great war.

Mr. Hogg: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the present scale of compensation for laundry losses can be increased in order to prevent it continuing to operate as an inducement to the theft and black-market sale of customers' garments.

Mr. Dalton: I do not think that my hon. Friend's proposal would achieve the object which he has in mind. Raising the present scale of compensation would not diminish theft or black-market sales where, as in the great majority of cases, laundry losses are not attributable to laundry proprietors, but to other ill-disposed persons.

Mr. Hogg: In view of the unsatisfactory position disclosed by the answers to the last three Questions, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Hollow-ware (Supplies)

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade how it is that Woolworths have been able to obtain permits to enable them to acquire home-manufactured enamelled ware for retail in their multiple shops, as they imported this ware pre-war, and as retail ironmongers are severely restricted from obtaining other than a small percentage of their pre-war home manufactured supplies of such ware.

Mr. Dalton: No permits are required for the purchase of enamel ware or other types of hollow-ware. Any retailer of hollowware with a turnover up to £2,500 in the standard year who thinks that he is getting less than his fair share of such goods, should take the matter up with his suppliers. If he is then still dissatisfied it is open to him to put his case to the Hollowware Distribution Committee. I am informed that Messrs. Woolworth obtained their supplies pre-war from British manufacturers.

Factory and Storage Space (Regional Control Staff)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to fill the post of assistant controller of factory and storage space in the North Midlands area at Nottingham, now vacant consequent on a recent resignation; and, if so, will he give directions that search should be made for a suitable established civil servant to be promoted.

Mr. Dalton: This vacancy was filled on 23rd November last by the promotion of a temporary officer, who was already serving on the Regional Controller's staff and was considered best fitted for the post.

Wireless Sets

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the 70,000 wireless sets of British make approaching completion in this country and the 14,000 sets of American manufacture bought in the United States for civilian use here will be released; and whether he is satisfied with the quality of the American sets our manufacturers are being asked to recondition.

Mr. Dalton: The British sets are put on the market as soon as they are completed. As my hon. Friend knows, there are very heavy demands at present for wireless equipment of all kinds for the Fighting Services, and these demands must have first claim on our supplies. Eighteen thousand American sets have now arrived in this country. These sets are similar to those which were imported from the United States before the war and were found to be of good quality.

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman control the prices of these sets?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, in the sense that it is open to me to issue an order controlling them.

Mr. Thorne: Why is there a shortage of valves for many of these sets?

Mr. Dalton: The short answer is that there is a shortage for civilian sets because the demands of the Services, as will be readily understood, are great and are increasing, and operational requirements must take precedence.

Sir Percy Harris: Will my right hon. Friend control prices, because when they are sold to civilians they are sold at exorbitant figures?

Mr. Dalton: That is not part of the Question on the Paper; but I am going into it.

Women's Services (Clothing Coupons)

Mr. Driberg: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the Ministry of Labour's announcement that preference will be given to those volunteers for the Women's Services who have served for at least six months in the G.T.C., he will now consider again the possibility of granting members of these corps some clothing coupon concession.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full reply which I gave to a number of Questions on this subject on 12th October, to which I regret that I have nothing to add.

Mr. Driberg: Has not the position been changed by the new announcement of the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir; the only change is that supplies are shorter than ever.

Miss Rathbone: Should not those responsible for recruitment for the G.T.C. impress upon their recruits that it is not the uniform which makes the soldier, but the spirit and body inside the uniform?

Radio Batteries

Sir A. Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the shortage of H.T. radio batteries, particularly in rural areas; and if he will arrange for an increased supply and better distribution.

Mr. Dalton: These batteries are being produced in accordance with a programme, undertaken on my behalf by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Supply, under which the maximum possible output for civilian needs is being obtained. The demands for the Services for essential operational purposes are very great, but I shall continue to keep a close watch on civilian supplies and their distribution, in consultation with my right hon. Friend.

Sir A. Knox: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how serious it is, as all batteries in use now are at least three years old, and some of them about ten years old?

Mr. Dalton: We are doing our best, but I know that my hon. and gallant Friend understands the reasons for the difficulties.

School Books and Equipment

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a shortage of exercise books, stationery, drawing instruments, etc., is handicapping the work of schools and technical colleges, and whether he will take steps to increase the supplies available.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): I have been asked to reply. The work of the schools and technical colleges is inconvenienced by the shortage of exercise books, stationery and drawing instruments, but the shortage is not at present so severe as to jeopardise its efficiency. My right hon. Friend fully appreciates the importance of the matter and is keeping it under review, but he does not consider that he would be justified in pressing the Ministers responsible for the supply of those articles to increase the supplies available for educational needs. There is a general restriction of supplies necessitated by war requirements and any improvement in the Board's quota could only be made at the expense of other important services.

Mr. Thorne: Is my hon. Friend aware of the shortage of lead pencils required for this class of work?

Mr. Ede: The shortage is generally in this type of supply, but up to the moment no serious inconvenience has really been caused.

Viscountess Astor: If the hon. Gentleman will take a look at some of the bookstalls he will see some really disgusting things that are being printed now; and will he put a stop to this sort of thing and help to provide more books that are educational—even Bibles would be better than some of the filth displayed on the bookstalls?

Hon. Members: Why "even"?

Mr. Ede: I must ask the Noble Lady not to lead me into temptation.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Do not books come before bombs in this country?

Cotton Spinning Mills (Equipment)

Mr. Hammersley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Industrial Supplies Department of his Board continue to refuse permits for the installation of equip-


ment however trivial intended to improve working conditions in cotton spinning mills; and will he give instructions that this attitude, which is hindering the normal development of the industry as well as jeopardising the efficiency of an essential export trade, should be replaced by one of co-operation in time of war.

Mr. Dalton: The issue of licences to install such equipment is strictly limited by the capacity of the manufacturers, many of whom are engaged on urgent war production. Nevertheless, during the first eleven months of 1943 more than 40 per cent. of the applications for air conditioning plant in cotton mills were granted, in addition to many licences issued to factories in other essential industries. I am most anxious that the working conditions in the cotton industry shall be made as attractive and healthy as possible and, with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, I am looking into the possibility of increasing the capacity for making the necessary equipment.

Mr. Hammersley: Have we not reached a ridiculous situation, if the right hon. Gentleman says that improvements are desirable, when employers are very anxious to put in new equipment, which factory inspectors are pressing for, and which involves amounts of labour and material which are quite unsubstantial, still little or nothing is done?

Mr. Dalton: I have explained that there are many claims. The cotton industry ranks high but other war factories rank no less high, and I must balance one claim against another; we are doing our best with the resources available.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman take note of what happened in this great industry—the largest export industry in the country—as a consequence of the last war, when it was reduced to about half its size?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, but I do not think that that was entirely due to the lack of air-conditioning plant.

Retail Traders (Re-Establishment)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the President of the Board of Trade to clear up misconceptions, whether every trader on the register of his Department will be entitled, without question, to return to his

business after the war on the same site he occupied prior to his enforced closing down.

Mr. Dalton: Licences will be granted after the war to traders on the Board of Trade Register of Withdrawing Retail Traders who wish to re-establish their former businesses at premises in respect of which they have registered. Should these premises not be available, licences will be granted for other premises in the same shopping area.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the case where a man has left the premises and they are let to an alien, that man will be allowed to have the same premises back again, as, otherwise, the goodwill will have gone with the business?

Mr. Dalton: All that my Department can do is to issue licences to trade at the same premises, or, failing that, at premises in the near neighbourhood or the same shopping area.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE

Greece, Belgium and France (Food Situation)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he will give the latest available information as to food conditions in Greece, Belgium and France under German occupation, especially in relation to the needs of the child population; and whether any further proposals for controlled food relief have been considered by His Majesty's Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): As the answer is a long one I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Harvey: Would the Parliamentary Secretary answer the last part of the Question, which is very important?

Mr. Foot: Of course, proposals are constantly under consideration but I am afraid I have no fresh decisions to announce.

Mr. Stokes: Does the answer indicate whether or not the Belgian Government have made any fresh report to His Majesty's Government? Is the hon. Gentleman afraid to answer that Question?

Following is the answer:

France.
In October, 5943, owing to a much improved wheat crop the bread ration in France was increased by approximately 6 ozs. per head per week. Normal consumers, children, and certain other categories receive the benefit of this concession, the only exceptions being certain classes of workers already in receipt of supplementary bread rations. At the same time the milling extract percentage was reduced and it was found possible to dispense with some of the substitutes which had been used to eke out supplies in the pre-harvest months. There has also been a slight improvement in the sugar allowance to children under three and the grain producer's bread ration has been restored to its former level. Otherwise the official rations remain as stated in the reply which I gave on 22nd April, 1943, to my hon. Friend, the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). My information is that the bread ration is now regularly available but full and punctual distribution of meat and fats rations is not everywhere maintained. In Paris, for example, it would appear that only three-quarters of the official meat ration has been distributed in recent weeks, while larger towns in the South of France have not been receiving the scheduled quantities of milk. German demands for French agricultural produce in the current year are again high. These exactions are a heavy burden for France and in excess of the quantities necessary for the maintenance of the occupying forces. If they were made available to the non-agricultural population, they would make possible a very substantial improvement in French rations.

Belgium.
Following the 1943 harvest there have been two increases in the Belgian bread ration, and the weekly allowance for a normal consumer is now approximately 74 ozs. as compared with 55 ozs. in April last. The weekly fats and cheese rations were each increased by ½ oz. in September though there was a reduction of ½ oz. in the meat ration. According to my information, these rations are regularly available and, in addition, children continue to receive their priority allowance of whole milk.

Greece.
The system of food distribution in Greece is different from that in other occupied countries. There appears to be no rationing of domestic produce. The Relief Commission distributes a regular bread ration in the principal towns and corresponding supplies of flour in many country areas. In addition it makes distributions of pulses, supplementary flour, sugar and sometimes olive oil and dried fruits, especially in the area of the capital. The Commission also distributes supplementary allowances of bread and other goods, including milk to children and to certain specially necessitous categories. Conditions in the smaller towns vary considerably, according to the availability of local supplies, which frequently depends upon the extent of military activity in the neighbourhood. Generally speaking, supplies of cereals in the Greek islands are seriously inadequate, but the Commission is endeavouring to extend relief to

islands which it has not previously been able to reach. In Greece as in other occupied countries it is necessary to draw a distinction between rural food-producing areas and the rest of the country. Conditions in the former are, of course, considerably better than in the cities and towns except where military operations interfere with distribution or the enemy destroys or seizes crops.
As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my previous statements on this subject.

Channel Islands (Parcels)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare if, in view of the fact that French nationals in this country can send personal parcels to relatives in occupied France, he will now extend the same facilities to Channel Islanders in this country to their relatives in occupied territory.

Mr. Foot: Except for parcels sent to prisoners of war the dispatch of parcels either from this country of from anywhere else outside the blockade area to persons in enemy-occupied territory is not permitted. I assume therefore that the parcels which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind are those sent to France from Portugal. Unfortunately there is no parcel postal service between Portugal and the Channel Islands.

Germany (Metal Imports)

Sir A. Knox: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare what proportion of her annual supply of steel it is estimated that Germany now obtains from Sweden, of wolfram from Portugal, of wolfram and tin from Spain and of chromium from Turkey; and what steps are being taken to reduce this assistance to the enemy afforded by our Allies or neutral countries.

Mr. Foot: In 1943, in addition to small quantities of special steels, Germany imported from Sweden approximately twenty per cent. of her total consumption of iron in ore. The House will, however, have observed from recent announcements in the Press that Swedish deliveries of iron ore will be substantially lower in 1944. In 1943 Germany obtained from Portugal about fifty per cent. of her total consumption of wolfram, from Spain about forty per cent. of her wolfram and an insignificant quantity of tin, and from Turkey in terms of chromic oxide content about thirty per cent. of her chrome.


As regards the second part of the Question, the House is already aware that steps are taken to pre-empt wolfram in the Iberian Peninsula and chrome in Turkey. It would not be in the public interest to announce what other steps His Majesty's Government are taking, or contemplate taking in the future, but as regards Portuguese wolfram I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs during the Debate on the Address of 15th December.

Mr. Shinwell: What beneficial effects have been derived as the result of the steps taken by the Government in the matter of the exportation of wolfram from Portugal and Spain to Germany? Has there been any reduction?

Mr. Foot: We have not achieved anything like all that we would wish to achieve, but as a result of the steps we have taken in the Iberian Peninsula it has been necessary during the last 12 months for Germany to try to bring wolfram from the Far East in blockade runners.

Mr. G. Strauss: Does it not follow from the answer that has been given, that 90 per cent. of Germany's wolfram to-day comes from the Iberian Peninsula and that if it were cut off, Germany's war industries would be entirely crippled?

Mr. Foot: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: If the reply is in the affirmative and this matter is so important, is it not time that we informed both Portugal and Spain, particularly Portugal, which is an old Ally and pretends still to be an Ally, that we are not going to stand for this much longer?

Coalminers (Food Rations)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare, if he has any information as to what is the food ration, respectively, of the British, German and United States coalminer employed under similar conditions.

Mr. Foot: I am afraid that no exact comparison is possible. The British miner can obtain rationed foodstuffs in canteens or restaurants without giving coupons, and bread and potatoes are unrationed. The German miner, although he receives substantial supplementary rations over and

above those of the normal German consumer, must surrender coupons for all meals eaten in canteens or restaurants; bread is included in his ration, and there is also local rationing of potatoes. The United States has a system of global rationing which is wholly different from the British and German systems.

Mr. Davies: When the hon. Gentleman says that it is difficult to answer my question, how comes it about that he is answering other questions about wolfram and the rest of it?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION

Morecambe Bay Area

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister without Portfolio, if he will have a survey made, and consideration given, to the plans drawn to scale sent to him by the hon. Member for Stoke, having for their object the development of the Morecambe Bay area, the establishment of a miniature Tennessee Valley scheme providing a causeway for rail and road transport opening direct access to Barrow and district and a more direct north road from Lancaster, the construction of a system of dams for hydro-power production, the construction of a power plant, seaplane base and an aerodrome, a light industry estate, the modernisation of Heysham, and the reclamation of land.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): This scheme would, if found to be practicable, offer facilities of diverse kinds in which a number of Government Departments and other interests would be concerned. As a first step I have forwarded copies of the sketch and the other papers which my hon. Friend was good enough to send me to the various Departments for examination. The question whether or not a more detailed survey should be made will depend upon the view taken as to the advantages of the facilities offered. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as my inquiries are completed.

Wales

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Minister without Portfolio, if he will publish the interim Reports he has received from the Welsh Advisory Council for Reconstruction and indicate any action which has been taken to give effect to recommendations which have been made.

Sir W. Jowitt: The Welsh Advisory Council do not consider that, in view of the undertakings which they gave to those who submitted evidence, it would be right to publish as they stand, the communications which they have made to me since they were appointed, and I agree with that view. The Council have, however, in an advanced state of preparation a first interim report in a different form which, without any breach of confidence, could be made available to hon. Members who are interested. I expect to receive the report in the next week or so, and I will then arrange for the necessary distribution.

Colonel Evans: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply may I ask him, in the absence of any guidance from the Welsh Advisory Council, how it is possible for local authorities and others who are anxious to formulate their own plans, to form them?

Sir W. Jowitt: I quite appreciate that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY (WHITE PAPER)

Mr. John Wilmot: asked the Minister without Portfolio if he will include in the forthcoming White Paper containing the Government's social security proposals a financial statement showing the comparative cost to the contributors and the Exchequer of these proposals and those made in the Beveridge Report.

Sir W. Jowitt: The White Paper will include a financial statement but changes in arrangement may make it difficult for such a comparison to be made except on broad lines. The point will be kept in mind.

Mr. Wilmot: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that it would not be possible to come to an informed judgment on this question unless some such comparative statement is available?

Mr. Graham White: asked the Prime Minister when the conclusions of His Majesty's Government in regard to social security will be laid before Parliament.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I hope that the White Paper on Social Security will be ready about the end of February or early March; but I cannot pledge myself to any particular date.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to give any further information with regard to British prisoners of war in Campo P.G.154, whose relatives are still without information as to their whereabouts.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): As was explained in an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on 22nd June, this was an Italian camp for British prisoners of war situated in Benghazi. There is no list of the prisoners of war who were in that camp either shortly before or at the time of its final evacuation by the Italians before the capture of Benghazi. It is known that most or all of the occupants on evacuation were removed by the Italians for transfer to Europe, but repeated inquiries addressed to the Italian authorities through the Protecting Power and the International Red Cross Committee failed to obtain particulars. Continuous efforts are made to discover what has become of the British personnel known at one time to have been prisoners of war in North Africa, of whom nothing has since been heard. Reference was made to these inquiries in answer to a Question on 6th July last by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower. Since then there has been no material addition to the amount of information available, and I regret to say that with the lapse of time the prospect of getting fresh information about individuals diminishes.

Mr. Hutchinson: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind the anxiety which the relatives feel for these prisoners and whether he will continue to pursue such inquiries as may be possible with regard to their welfare?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly bear in mind the anxiety of the relatives. I have great sympathy with them and I am extremely grieved that I am not in a position to relieve their anxiety.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED FORCES, ITALY (PURCHASES)

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Secretary of State for War if steps have been taken to prohibit the purchase of food-


stuffs by the Allied Forces in Italy, so that the same may be left available for the local inhabitants.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the inflationary consequences of the present exchange rate with Italy of 400 lire to the £ which results in free spending by Allied Forces and hoarding by the Italians in anticipation of rising prices and which is likely to lead to serious results, he will confer with the American Government as to the possibility of reducing the exchange rate to nearer its correct parity.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the inflationary tendencies which have been set in motion in liberated Italy, he is now prepared to recommend a rate for the lira-sterling exchange lower than 400 lire to the £.

Sir J. Grigg: I must first make it clear that I do not accept all the implications in these Questions. I am, however, aware of the shortage of supplies for the civil population in certain parts of Italy due to military stores and equipment having to take priority in shipping over imported foodstuffs for local needs. Purchases by the troops of foodstuffs in short supply have been prohibited and local purchase is regulated by Local Resources Boards but, despite this, there is no doubt that both in Fifth and Eighth Army areas such purchases have occurred. Everything possible is being done to check this indiscriminate purchasing by troops, but my hon. Friends will realise how difficult it is in practice to eliminate. The prices used in these black market transactions are not governed by rates of exchange. No alteration in the existing rate would, therefore, be effective in this connection.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

War Office Messenger (Establishment)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that messenger W. Barrett, employed in his Department, has completed 50 years' service but still remains unestablished; and what he proposes to do about this case.

Sir J. Grigg: Messenger Barrett has been employed for most of his life outside War Office Headquarters and it is

not the practice to establish messengers serving at outstations. When he was transferred to headquarters, he was, I regret to say, too old for establishment. He is now over 65 and I am sorry that establishment is out of the question.

Mr. Brown: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it most undesirable that men who have served for such long periods as this should be sent out at the end of their career without a penny, and will he not, in his capacity as War Minister, do something to override these stupid Treasury regulations?

Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend knows as well as I do the powers of the Departments in the matter of overriding Treasury Regulations.

Overseas Trade Department (Staff)

Mr. Kendall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there are now two officers holding the rank of Comptroller General of the Department of Overseas Trade at a salary of £1,953 per annum; and whether he will arrange for the substantive holder of the post, Sir Quintin Hill, to return to his proper employment from his work on post-war planning with the Minister of Reconstruction so that the Department may have the benefit of his long experience of commercial problems gained in the Board of Trade and the Department of Overseas Trade in its recently increased activities on planning for post-war export trade.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. Arrangements of this kind are an inevitable accompaniment of war-time conditions and where, as in this instance, they affect officers of high rank they are naturally kept under constant review by the Ministers concerned. I can assure the hon. Member that that is so in the case of the Department of Overseas Trade.

Sir H. Williams: In view of the limited extent of overseas trade, is there any need for this Department at all?

Sir J. Anderson: That is another question.

Temporary Civil Servants (Salary Scales)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the scale of salaries of temporary civil servants is in some cases below


that of regular members of the staff; and whether he will consider in such cases increases required to bring the two scales into parity.

Sir. J. Anderson: I am afraid that I could not agree to the wholesale revision suggested by hon. Friend. In some cases temporary civil servants are less valuable to their Departments than permanent civil servants, partly because of their lack of experience, partly because, having been recruited in great numbers and not through the usual national competitions, their average quality is not as high. On the other hand, where appropriate, the rates of pay of temporary civil servants have been brought into line with those of their permanent colleagues; and there are cases in which temporary civil servants are paid at higher rates.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not a generally accepted principle that a temporary civil servant on equal terms as far as qualities are concerned ought to be paid more since he does not have the advantage of superannuation as well as other advantages?

Sir J. Anderson: There are other differences in the basis of payment, and the complications of implemental scales have to be taken into account.

Pensioned Civil Servants (Re-employment)

Commander Galbraith: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any retired civil servant, at present employed on Government work, is drawing his full pension in addition to the emoluments of his present office.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, provides (in effect) that if a pensioned civil servant
shall be appointed to fill any office in a Public Department,
he may draw only so much, if any, of his pension as when added to the pay of his new office does not exceed the pay of his old office. An appointment paid from public funds is not always an office in a public Department within the meaning of the section.

Commander Galbraith: May we take it from that answer that retired members of the Civil Service are treated in exactly the same way as retired officers of the Army Navy, and Air Force?

Mr. Assheton: No, Sir, I would not like to commit myself to that without considerable thought.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Can my right hon. Friend say why not?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

A.B.C.A. Pamphlets

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will remove from the cover of the A.B.C.A. pamphlets the intimation that their contents must not be communicated to the Press or other un-authorised persons, since these pamphlets have a considerable circulation among editors, educationists and others, and contain no matter whose reproduction would endanger security.

Sir. J. Grigg: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) on 19th October.

Ordnance Depot, Water Supply

Mr. R.C. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to remedy the conditions arising from inadequate water supplies at an ordnance depot of which he has been informed.

Sir. J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the severe shortage of water at this carne which has been greatly aggravated by the unusually low rainfall. The public supply authority, from whose resources the depot is supplied, is constructing new permanent works to augment the present supply and in the meantime has constructed temporary works which will be put into service as soon as possible. Local arrangements have also been made by the War Department to ease the demand by carting drinking water from other sources and by making use of local streams for other purposes. Until the normal supply is increased the strictest measures of water economy must necessarily remain in force in the depot.

Mr. Thorne: Will it be impossible to have one of these artesian wells sunk at this camp?

Sir J. Grigg: I have not the slightest doubt that the authorities have considered all possible sources of supply, but I will make certain that that particular possibility has not been overlooked.

Mr. R.C. Morrison: Does not the reply indicate that insufficient attention was given in planning this camp to the necessity of seeing that a water supply was available?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. Such trouble as occurred is entirely due to the fact that, for operational reasons, the camp had to be occupied rather earlier than the expected date.

Awards and Decorations (R.A.M.C. and A.D.C.)

Sir Harold Webbe: asked the Secretary of State for War how many awards or decorations, other than for special cases of conspicuous gallantry, have been made since the outbreak of war to officers or late officers and other ranks of the R.A.M.C. and the A.D.C., respectively; and what proportions do these awards represent to the number of officers or of men employed.

Sir J. Grigg: 204 awards and decorations other than for cases of conspicuous gallantry, have been made to R.A.M.C. officers and 22 to R.A.M.C. other ranks. In addition 499 officers and 381 other ranks have been mentioned in despatches. No citations accompany recommendations for Mentions and it is impossible to say how many of them are for cases other than gallantry. The corresponding figures for the Army Dental Corps are 4, none, 9 and 8. The answers to the second part of the Question would disclose the strength of the two Corps and I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot give them to him.

Sir H. Webbe: Will my right hon. Friend tell us why there is this extraordinary difference in the recognition of the two branches of the health service of the Army?

Sir J. Grigg: I have not the slightest doubt that the reason is because the R.A.M.C. operate very much further forward than the Army Dental Corps.

Accommodation (Wallasey)

Mr. Reakes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 350 soldiers were recently sent late at night to Wallasey where no preparations for sleeping and rationing had been made for them; and what disciplinary action he proposes to take against the officers in movement control responsible for the welfare of these men.

Sir J. Grigg: The investigation which is being carried out into this case has not yet been completed, but if it shows that disciplinary action is called for such action will certainly be taken.

Retired Officers (A.C.I. 442)

Flight-Lieutenant Challen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that A.C.I. 442, of 1942, lays down that retired officers whose pay and emoluments exceed £350 per annum may forego the payment of national health and pensions contributions, he will consider with the Ministry of Health methods of securing that such officers who happen to be employed in civil capacities should not have this deduction made.

Sir J. Grigg: The Army Council Instruction to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers relates to a limited class of retired officers who are re-employed under Pay Warrant, 1940, Article 498(a), on special terms as to pay and emoluments, and if their total emoluments including retired pay are in excess of £420 per year they are excepted from insurance. The ordinary statutory provisions, however, apply to ex-officers employed in an ordinary civilian capacity in exactly the same way as they apply to other persons working for private or commercial employers and consequently such ex-officers cannot be excluded from compulsory insurance unless the salary paid in respect of their employment exceeds £420 per year.

Service Abroad

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for War whether all men who have been serving with the Army abroad for six years or longer have now been brought back to this country; and how far he proposes to develop this process in the future.

Sir J. Grigg: The speed with which men being returned to the Home Establishment are in fact returned varies in the commands abroad according to the shipping available from the area and the local military requirements, but except in the case of India practically all men who have been abroad for more than six years have been brought home. A start has already been made with men who have been abroad under six years and I hope in due course that the qualifying period will be further reduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether Italian prisoners of war are allowed to listen to enemy broadcasts, or whether they have any other means of access to enemy propaganda.

Sir J. Grigg: Italian prisoners of war have always been allowed to listen to certain broadcasts from Rome provided that they also hear the B.B.C. news in Italian. The answer to the last part of the Question is No, Sir.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any further statement to make on the use of Italian prisoners of war.

Sir J. Grigg: I hope it will be possible to make a statement about this shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Hostel Accommodation, Manchester

Mr. Harry Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in Manchester the hostels providing sleeping accommodation for members of His Majesty's Forces are insufficient; that as a result many Servicemen in transit and on leave in the city cannot get a bed and have to sleep on chairs or on the floors of hostels or canteens, or in air-raid shelters or on railway platforms, or to walk the streets all night; that this state of affairs is known to the Army Welfare Committee for the Manchester area and to the command welfare officer, Western Command; and what steps are being taken to improve conditions.

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at a recent representative meeting, held under the chairmanship of the Lord Mayor of Manchester, at which representatives of the Army Welfare Committee were present, it was admitted that there was an acute shortage of hostel sleeping accommodation for members of His Majesty's Forces in Manchester; that, subsequent to the meeting, the Army Welfare Committee made suggestions that one of the hostels in Manchester should provide the capital expenditure for the provision of 600 additional beds; and whether he will bear this financial responsibility and not leave it to the ratepayers of Manchester or the charitably minded citizens of Manchester and district.

Sir J. Grigg: The shortage of sleeping accommodation in Manchester arises mainly from the influx of Allied and British troops on leave in the city. The Minister of Works is now providing 1,000 additional beds for American personnel, which it is hoped will ease the general situation. I am endeavouring to find suitable premises for extra dormitory accommodation near the railway station, but as all building labour available to the War Department is at present concentrated on most urgent operational work I am afraid it may not be possible to make any extra provision in the near future.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as recently as last Saturday night 75 British soldiers had to be housed in an air raid shelter in the centre of the City, that this situation has been going on for some time, and that there will be no improvement until the officer in charge of welfare at Chester has been removed?

Pension Entitlement (Determination)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Prime Minister if he will close the gap between pay and pension by giving directions to the Service Departments on the one hand and the Ministry of Pensions on the other, to come to an arrangement for the retention on the strength and on full pay and allowances of a serving man or woman, even if he is unfit, until his rights to compensation have been finally decided by the Minister or by an appeals tribunal.

The Prime Minister: I understand that entitlement to pension is determined in the majority of cases before the man has completed discharge furlough. The Minister of Pensions also has power to make a provisional award in cases where it appears likely that entitlement will be granted but where a final decision may be somewhat delayed. Where a decision is delayed, payment is made with effect from the date of discharge. In cases where pension is awarded on appeal to the Minister or to an appeal tribunal, payment is also made retrospectively from the date of discharge unless the man concerned has allowed a period of six months or more to elapse before making representations to the Ministry as to their failure to grant a pension. I see no reason to assume that these arrangements are inadequate.

Sir I. Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are a fair number of cases where doubt about a man's entitlement cannot be resolved until the appeal tribunal sits and that since he has left the Service and has lost his pay there is sometimes a gap of weeks or months during which he has to go to public assistance for his only means of support? If that could be bridged does not my right hon. Friend think that that would meet public opinion?

The Prime Minister: I think it might be a useful thing if my hon. and gallant Friend had a talk to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and laid before him any instances he has in mind.

Casualties

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to give up-to-date statistics covering the casualties among British Forces since the outbreak of the present war.

The Prime Minister: As was explained to my hon. Friend on 14th December, work is in hand on the preparation of a statement of casualties of the Armed Forces of the British Empire for the first four years of war. But, having regard to the considerations to which attention was then drawn it is unlikely that this statement can be published before April.

Mr. Davies: Is it not very strange that the American Government are able to announce these casualties regularly every month?

The Prime Minister: I cannot be answerable for the American Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES ARMY VEHICLES (CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the British Claims Commission will now accept responsibility to British claimants for the assessment and settlement of claims arising from personal injuries caused by American Army vehicles in the United Kingdom in the same manner as agriculural claims arising from American Army exercises.

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that I can add nothing at present to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend on 14th December. The matter is still under discussion with the State Department in Washington.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not a scandal that British subjects who have been killed or injured by American vehicles have no redress against anybody? Is it not time the British Government protected our own subjects?

Captain Strickland: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to what is holding up the negotiations?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not personally conducting the negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Sir William Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that local authorities in the London area find it impossible to proceed with their plans for housing and town planning generally till the Government have announced what is their national planning policy and, in particular, as to their policy with regard to the location of industry in London and as to the probability of any substantial removal from London of existing industries; and when a Government statement will be made in the matter.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I am assured by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning that local authorities in the London area are making substantial progress with the preparation of their plans.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London County Council are being informed by many local authorities that they are unable to submit plans for housing and town planning until the Government make a statement as to what the population of London is likely to be after the war?

The Prime Minister: This Question will, no doubt, draw attention to the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL DEFENCE

Sir William Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the lack of appreciation of our responsibilities with regard to Imperial Defence which prevailed throughout the country and among Members of Parliament prior to the war and was largely responsible for our state of unpreparedness, he will arrange for an annual Report to be submitted to Parliament by the Committee of Imperial Defence, briefly setting out such responsibilities and stating the esti-


mated time required to provide any weapons which might be considered necessary for the effective discharge of our obligations.

The Prime Minister: For good or for ill I expect we shall have to depend upon the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament in this as in other grave matters.

Sir W. Davison: Would it not be desirable, in view of the great pre-occupation of all Governments, that an annual report should be made by the Committee of Imperial Defence so that Parliament, at any rate, would know the position and the required time to provide any necessary equipment?

The Prime Minister: The Committee of Imperial Defence has no fixed membership. It consists of those persons, political and military, who are invited by the Prime Minister to take part in its deliberations. I certainly should not be prepared to support a system in which naval, military or air force officers would be invited to pronounce probably against the wishes of the Government of the day. That would conflict with the whole foundation of our Parliamentary system.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I asked a similar Question some time ago and that unless something of this sort is done the tendency for the Defence Ministries to diverge rather than co-operate is quite certain? Will my right hon. Friend exclude from his references to Members of Parliament my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes?

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICES OF PROFIT UNDER THE CROWN (LEGISLATION)

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to bring forward legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Offices of Profit under the Crown.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will be aware, legislation relating to Part II of the Select Committee's Report dealing with the present emergency has been before the House on two occasions and a further House of Commons (Temporary Provisions) Bill will shortly be introduced. With regard to Part I of the Committee's Report, namely, that part in which the

Committee made recommendations as to the proper principles on which future legislation for normal times of peace should be based, the Government do not at present feel themselves able to make any recommendations to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — VICTORIA CROSS AND GEORGE CROSS (WOMEN)

Mr. Critchley: asked the Prime Minister if, having regard to the courage displayed by women in this war and their devotion to duty in the tasks allotted them, any woman serving in the branches of His Majesty's Forces has been recommended for the Victoria Cross; if such honour has been open to women since the commencement of hostilities; and if he will give an assurance that no discrimination will be used against women being awarded such an honour.

The Prime Minister: No recommendation in favour of a woman has been made during the war so far for the Victoria Cross, which is given only for services in active operations against the enemy. The Naval, Military and Air Force Nursing Services and the Women's Auxiliary Services have been eligible for the award since the outbreak of war, with the exception that, owing to a change of status, the Auxiliary Territorial Service and the Women's Auxiliary Air Force became ineligible for a period during 1941–42. Women are also eligible for the George Cross for services not in active operations against the enemy, and Corporal J.D.M. Pearson of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force holds that decoration. I can, therefore, readily give my hon. Friend the assurance he desires and I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the courage and devotion to duty displayed by women in all walks of life and forms of service during the present war.

Viscountess Astor: Would it be too much to ask my right hon. Friend to make a speech some day telling us what he really does think about women's services in the war?

The Prime Minister: I addressed a meeting at the Albert Hall on this subject and I gathered that there was some criticism.

Viscountess Astor: May I remark that that was a closed meeting?

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Prime Minister the number of Statutory Rules and Orders made in 1943 which were printed and placed in the Library; and the corresponding number in 1942.

The Prime Minister: The number for 1942 is 1,953; and that for 1943 is 1,379.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL DUTIES)

Captain Plugge: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to relieve himself of some of his official burdens with a view to conserving his health.

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his solicitude. But I have no changes at present to propose in my routine.

Captain Plugge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will be received with great satisfaction throughout the country?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Ought we not all to drink this toast, "Death to all Dictators and Long Life to all Liberators"—among whom my right hon. Friend is first?

The Prime Minister: It is very early in the morning.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has now been reached with reference to the proposal that Private Members' rights to introduce Bills should be restored.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The House decided by Resolution on 25th November last that no Bills other than Government Bills should be introduced during the present Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SITUATION (OPERATIONS, ITALY)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Prime Minister if he can make a statement about the progress of operations in Italy.

The Prime Minister: I should like in the near future to make a statement to the House about the general progress of the war, including the war in Italy; but I would ask to be given some latitude about the actual date.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some perturbation has been caused through the false optimism raised in a recent speech which General Montgomery made to his troops, in which he indicated the probability of the early capture of Rome?

The Prime Minister: I do not know about false optimism, but there has been a lot of bad weather.

Oral Answers to Questions — BATTLE OF BRITAIN (STAR)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the inauguration of a Battle of Britain Star for the N.F.S. and C.D. workers in target areas who were continually in action in 1940 and 1941, in view of the general desire for such an award.

The Prime Minister: This is a matter which my hon. and gallant Friend could raise when the subject is debated.

Major C. S. Taylor: When will the Debate take place?

The Prime Minister: We shall have to go into that with the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION SERVICE (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has any statement to make about the future of the television service.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): The Government have appointed a Committee to consider and make recommendations as to the development of television after the war. It includes scientific experts and representatives of the Post Office, the Treasury and the B.B.C. I will circulate the names of the members.

Following is the list of members:

Lord Hankey (Chairman).
Sir Noel Ashbridge, B.B.C.
Mr. Robert Foot, B.B.C.
Sir Raymond Birchall, Post Office.
Colonel Sir Stanley Angwin, Post Office.
Mr. Harvey, Treasury.
Sir Edward Appleton, D.S.I.R.
Professor Cockroft, Ministry of Supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Income Tax (Authors)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, under U.S.A. income tax laws, brain-workers, such as writers and others, who may have been engaged on a particular piece of work for some years and then sell it for a lump sum are allowed, for purposes of taxation, to spread their remuneration over the period of production instead of, as here, having to account for it in the single year of receipt; and whether he will consider introducing some similar system in this country.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I am aware of the provision of U.S.A. Income Tax law to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am afraid that I cannot see my way to adopt his suggestion that a similar provision should be introduced in this country. Such a provision would involve a departure, in the case of fluctuating incomes of particular professions, from the general principle of the United Kingdom Income Tax system under which income is taxable as and when it arises.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that our present system presses heavily upon British authors, who are a poor but highly deserving section of the community? Will he not consider it a little further?

Sir J. Anderson: We all realise that it presses very heavily.

University Grants Committee

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the terms of reference of the recently reconstituted University Grants Committee; and whether its functions have been or will be enlarged, in view of the educational and financial problems confronting the universities.

Sir J. Anderson: No change has been made in the terms of reference of the University Grants Committee, which are—"To enquire into the financial needs of University education in the United Kingdom and to advise the Government as to the application of any grants that may be made by Parliament towards meeting them." It seems to me that these terms of reference are wide enough to enable the Committee to report on any problem

on which the Government might need advice in connection with the making of grants to Universities. I may add that there has grown up between the Committee and the Universities an accepted custom of constant informal consultation on matters of University policy, and it is contemplated that this will be continued and developed.

Mr. Harvey: Is there any probability of the formation of a University Council in the not distant future in order to get that consultation more effective?

Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid I cannot say anything about that.

War Damage Claims (Appeals)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the 28 days' period in which to appeal after the determination of a price for a value payment on bomb damaged houses will apply to owners and tenants engaged on National Service either overseas or in this country who, in consequence of such service, have neither the information or the facilities available to lodge an appeal within the specified time.

Sir J. Anderson: The War Damage (Appeals and References) Rules contain provisions enabling the time limit for an appeal against the War Damage Commission's determination of the amount of a value payment to be extended where there are reasonable grounds for granting such an extension. Extensions may be granted even though the application for the extension is not made until the ordinary time limit has already expired.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I hope my right hon. Friend will appreciate that in many cases these notifications do not reach personnel of the Services until after the period for appeal has expired?

Sir J. Anderson: And for that reason provision is made for an extension.

Purchase Tax (Toilet Articles)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that toilet articles, including cosmetics, manufactured and sold by unregistered makers are at present exempt from purchase tax up to the value of £500 sales per annum; and if he will consider utilising this new source of revenue.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. There would be great difficulties in bringing a large number of small manufacturers under


effective Revenue control, but the whole matter is being carefully watched.

Motor Taxation

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider appointing a committee to examine the present system of motor taxation with a view to securing a basis of calculation designed to encourage the construction of higher horse-power engines whereby British manufacturers would be in a more advantageous position to compete in overseas markets.

Sir J. Anderson: I am at present engaged in a review of the system of motor taxation, and in this review full weight is being given to the consideration mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that no higher powered cars get on the highways?

Sir J. Anderson: I will not make any commitments.

Government Borrowing (Bank Interest)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total amount for each of the war years paid to and via the banks of Britain on account of interest and other benefits arising from the several forms of borrowing and bank investment in Government loans.

Sir J. Anderson: While I have no doubt that a high proportion of interest on Government borrowing is paid through the banks, the detailed information is not available, and I would not be justified in arranging for the elaborate investigations which would be required in order to provide it.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not possible to give the total amount of interest paid to banks whether for direct investment or as agents?

Sir J. Anderson: If the Question is put down in a different form I will reconsider the matter, but to give the information asked for would involve a very long investigation.

Mr. Molson: Is it not the case that the banks pay no Excess Profits Tax, which indicates that no excessive profits have been made?

Mr. Woodburn: The Question says nothing about excess profits. It is a

simple question as to the total amount of interest paid to banks.

Sir J. Anderson: I shall be glad to explain to the hon. Member why the Question is not as simple as he thinks.

National Debt

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the existing composition of the National Debt; what the debt was at an appropriate date before its increase in 1938; and the amounts at the latest convenient date of long-term and short-term borrowings.

Sir J. Anderson: The composition of the National Debt on the 31st March of each year is published in the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom. The total of the debt at 31st March, 1938, was £8,026 millions. The approximate total at 31st December, 1943, was £19,237 millions, of which £4,948 millions consisted of floating debt.

Local Authority Staffs (Pensions)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in considering adjustments of pensions of retired military and other State servants, he will take into account also the need for adjustment in the pensions of retired teachers and other retired local authority staff.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, within the limits of my statement on 3rd December, to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend.

Tax Free Loans

Mr. Graham White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state, as on the last convenient date, the amount of tax-free loan received since the outbreak of war.

Sir J. Anderson: With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. White: In anticipation of the figures asked for, will the right hon. Gentleman see that this very helpful form of investment is adequately advertised in connection with the forthcoming savings campaign?

Sir J. Anderson: I will bear the point in mind.

Sir Irving Albery: In what way is a tax free loan a helpful form of investment?

Sir J. Anderson: Because it is free of tax.

Following is the answer:

The Government securities on which interest is paid free of tax are National Savings Certificates and Tax Reserve Certificates. National Savings Certificates have been on issue since the outbreak of war; Tax Reserve Certificates since 23rd December, 1941.

The amounts received to 31st December, 1943, are as follows:



£000



TRC.
NSC.


Subscribed
1,026,600
997,850


Repaid (exclusive of interest)
380,112
141,550


Net Increase
646,488
856,300

South American. Government Loans (Interest)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the action of certain South American Governments in arbitrarily reducing agreed rates of interest on their loans taken up by British subjects, he will, in view of the importance of invisible exports and the most advantageous use of British capital in the post-war restoration of British trade, investigate the desirability of such financial assistance, being accorded to Governments who, even in times of prosperity, do not recognise international obligations.

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend may be assured that all relevant factors, including those to which he has drawn attention, will be borne in mind.

INTERNATIONAL POST-WAR CURRENCY

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any progress has been made in the discussions between this country and the U.S.A. on the international post-war currency plans; and whether he can make a statement.

Sir J. Anderson: I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Mr. Strauss: Has any agreement or understanding been arrived at between the officials conducting these negotiations?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think I ought to commit myself on any point of detail in advance of the general statement.

Mr. Strauss: Are the Government in a position now to consider the proposals and to make any statement to the House in the near future?

Sir J. Anderson: The Government are considering the proposals.

Sir Irving Albert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any information concerning the invitation issued by the United States Treasury to 44 countries to attend an international monetary conference.

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend is doubtless referring to certain reports appearing in the Press; so far as I am aware these reports are premature.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEND-LEASE (CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FOR CIVILIAN SERVICES)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the United States has begun transferring its foreign trade from lend-lease to private commerce under a new Government policy; and what goods has Britain and its Empire agreed shall be switched from lend lease to a cash basis and handled through ordinary commercial channels.

Sir J. Anderson: The U.S. Government has intimated that lend-lease terms will no longer apply in the case of requisitions made after 15th November for certain items of capital equipment required for civilian purposes. The exact scope of this decision is still under discussion with the U.S. authorities and I cannot as yet say what changes in the method of procurement may be involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING COMMISSION ON MUSEUMS

Major Markham: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Standing Commission on Museums has met recently; whether it has formulated any proposals on reconstruction for national museums and art galleries; and when it last issued an Annual Report.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): Since 1941 the effect of the war on the activities of the national institutions has much reduced the work of the Commission, which is an advisory body. Their last meeting took place in February, 1943. A further meeting will take place next month at which the


subject of repairs and reconstruction of the national institutions will be considered. The Commission is not required to publish annual reports. Before the war it issued five-yearly surveys; the last one was dated August, 1938.

Major Markham: Are there any proposals for the reorganisation of this Commission, and are there any representatives of the provincial museums on it?

Mr. Assheton: The function of this Commission in regard to provincial institutions is to co-ordinate their work with the national institutions. If my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to put down a Question on the other point I will give him an answers.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES (WAR DAMAGE)

Major Markham: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can now give particulars of damage done to national museums and art galleries, including collections, by enemy action.

Mr. Assheton: I am not in a position at present to give detailed particulars, nor do I think that it would be desirable to do so. Broadly, the position is that, while there has been substantial damage to buildings, the effect of the damage on the collections has been minimised by the special steps taken at the beginning of the war to remove large parts of the collections, including the objects of greatest value, to places of safety.

Major Markham: Why does my right hon. Friend think it undesirable to publish the details of damage done to national monuments and collections?

Mr. Assheton: I am advised by the Ministry of Home Security that they think it preferable that this information should not be made public.

Major Markham: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to make them revise that advice?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY OPERATIONS, YUGOSLAVIA

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement about recent military activities in Yugoslavia.

Sir J. Grigg: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate particulars of these activities in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:

At the beginning of December the enemy launched a widespread offensive against the Yugoslav National Army of Liberation (also known as the "Partisans"). The principal fighting was in Eastern Bosnia and the Sanjak, where a large body of Partisans was at one time encircled by at least one Bulgarian and four German divisions. The Partisans had contrived by 15th December to break out to the North and this part of the German offensive was unsuccessful. In Dalmatia the Germans made a drive inland from their coastal bases and penetrated as far as Livno, some 40 miles North East of Split. Livno, however, changed hands several times before being secured by the enemy on about 15th December. In spite of repeated attempts, the Germans have not managed to advance any further in this region. In Croatia also there was heavy fighting about 50 miles South of Zagreb, but by 21st December the Partisans were able to announce that the whole of this area had been cleared of the enemy. In general, this large-scale German offensive against the Partisan forces was a failure.

In the latter part of December the main German operation was the capture of the island of Korcula, South of Split. On 2nd January this was followed up by the capture of the adjacent island of Mljet. Early in January the Partisans made a daring raid on the Bosnian town of Banjaluka, which was held by a strong German garrison. Heavy casualties were inflicted on the enemy and a large number of prisoners and much war material captured before the Partisans withdraw. During the second week in January the Germans launched a heavy offensive in Central Bosnia, which is still in progress. Jajce has had to be abandoned by the Partisans and an enemy armoured and motorised column has made some progress Southward from Banjaluka. During the period under review, apart from the operations mentioned above, there has been almost continuous fighting over the whole of Yugoslavia excepting Eastern Serbia. Serious damage has been inflicted on enemy rail and road communications and particularly on the railway between Zagreb and Belgrade, which is the principal line for German supplies to South East Europe.

The Partisan Army has been supplied with war material by the Allies to the full extent that the military situation has permitted; Partisan operations have on numerous occasions been supported by our air forces; and close liaison has been maintained by Allied officers in Yugoslavia. The Partisan Army has at one time or another during this period engaged up to fifteen German divisions, which might otherwise have been profitably employed elsewhere. Large areas of Yugoslavia are entirely under Partisan control. Further, by their interruption of German sea, road and rail communications, the Partisans have inflicted a heavy burden on the German organisation of supplies.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Major Neven-Spence: On a question of Business, may I ask the Leader of the House whether an early date will be given for a Debate on the Motion on Agriculture standing in the names of myself and many other Hon. Members?

[That this House is of opinion that the recent alterations in farm prices make inadequate provision for the payment by the great majority of farmers of the increased wages; that an unfair burden is placed on such farmers; and that farm prices should consequently be reconsidered forthwith.]

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): My hon. and gallant Friend is aware that the usual practice is to announce Business on the third Sitting Day. I think, however, that it might be for the convenience of the House if I said now that the Government propose to give facilities for a Debate on Agriculture in the next series of Sittings. I should add that we shall have to take Government Business. I cannot undertake to take the Motion because there is much Government Business to be taken. There is a Vote of Credit and we might have the Debate on the Report stage of that Vote. In any event, I will see that the Debate is wide enough to meet the wishes of hon. Members.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Lieutenant Hugh McDowall Lawson, for the County of York, West Riding (Skipton Division).

ADJOURNMENT MOTION (DEBATES)

Mr. Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House if I made a statement now about the half-hour Adjournment which we have every day. I am proposing on the first Sitting Day each week to place on the back of the Speaker's Chair a list of the Adjournments for the following Sitting Days of that week and the subjects which are to be raised.

VOTE OF CREDIT (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1943 (EXPENDI TURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR).

Estimate presented of the further sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March 1944, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 8.]

VOTE OF CREDIT, 1944 (EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR).

Estimate presented of the sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March 1945, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 9.]

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOY MENT) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further and better provision for enabling persons handicapped by disablement to secure employment, or work on their own account, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of providing for disabled persons vocational training courses and courses for rendering such persons fit for employment or work on their own account or for such training of providing facilities for enabling such persons who are unlikely to be able otherwise to obtain employment or to undertake work on their own account to obtain or undertake it under special conditions and for training such persons (including the expenses of the formation and incorporation of one or more companies for that purpose), and of defraying travelling expenses incurred by persons attending such courses or for whom such facilities are provided and making payments to or in respect of such persons;
(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of salaries or remuneration to officers and servants appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for the purposes of the said Act and any other administrative expenses incurred for the purposes thereof by any Government department, and expenses incurred in paying allowances to the members of any national advisory council or district advisory committee established for the purposes thereof or of any panel established by such a committee and to persons attending before any such council, committee or panel, or in paying any other expenses of any such council, committee or panel;
(c) the charge on the consolidated fund of the amount of any expenses incurred by the Government of Northern Ireland under any laws made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland in so far as such laws could not have been made apart from any power to make laws for purposes similar to purposes of the said Act conferred by the said Act on the Parliament of Northern Ireland."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Definition of "disabled person.")

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after

"disease," to insert "whether physical or mental."
I do not want to deliver a long speech on this Amendment because I am happy to note that the Ministry itself has, in effect, accepted much of what I am trying to achieve. I might, however, be allowed to say a word about the purposes of my Amendment. I find that the wording of this Clause does not tally with the wording of Acts of Parliament in relation to similar problems. On turning to the Royal Warrant governing pensions in respect of war service, I find there the words "mental and physical" specifically mentioned, to cover all manner of diseases. I have had a little experience in administering benefits in this type of case and that is why I am interested in the point. One of the most difficult cases to deal with in the matter of rehabilitation is that of neurosis. I am not so sure that the Ministry of Labour would be able to deal with cases of that kind under the Bill as it stands at present. The last report of the Ministry of Pensions shows that the largest single group of disabled persons still remaining on their books from the last war is that of persons suffering from neurosis, and I move this Amendment in order to bring that type of case inside the meaning of this Bill.
Even now when we have before us the Minister's proposed Amendment which, of course, I welcome very much, I believe I am right in saying that it will not cover all the ground. I speak with some knowledge of this problem because I happen to be the chairman of a Mental Welfare Association in Lancashire. In spite of the law, some mental deficients have actually entered the Forces, and the Amendment that the Ministry of Labour propose to insert in this Bill apparently debars that type of person altogether from the provisions of this Measure. I do not want to say very much more, except that I am very glad that the Ministry have found out that I was right in principle in tabling the Amendment I put on the Paper. I welcome this Bill for many reasons; and it may interest the House to know that my experience shows that neurosis cases, in particular, are cured very often by training the patient to do something useful, and not simply keeping him in an institution and giving him medicine to swallow.
Having said that, I trust that the Minister will be able to say, when he comes to his own Amendment that the Ministry do intend to take very serious note of what I think will be the largest group at the end of this war, namely, neurosis cases. When I say that, I mean also those cases that have suffered very badly in consequence of the bombing by the Germans in this country. I move this Amendment in the hope that later on I may be able to withdraw it in favour of the Minister's own Amendment.

Viscountess Astor: May I ask the hon. Member whether he thinks there have been many cases of neurosis due to the bombing?

Mr. Davies: Yes, indeed. If the Noble Lady will forgive me for saying so, she will be surprised at the number of cases, happily of short duration, of women in particular suffering from neurosis due to blitzes.

Viscountess Astor: May I say that in Plymouth we have very few such cases?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): There is no doubt that the definition does cover both physical and mental. The Amendment which we have put down, deals with an entirely different type of case from that about which the hon. Member was speaking. He is entirely wrong when he says that mental deficients will not come under the Bill.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows there is a vast difference between lunacy and mental deficiency. For illustration, I would point out the wording of the Government's own Amendment which says:
the expression 'disease' shall be construed as including a physical or mental condition arising from imperfect development of any organ.
The mental deficient is deficient from birth, and cannot answer for his brains at all.

Captain Duncan: I am not quite clear where we are on this matter of Amendments. Of the two Amendments I would prefer the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman, because the Minister's Amendment deals only, as far as I can understand it, with mental deficients, with the imperfect development of an organ. That is mental

deficiency. It does not in any way cover cases in which I am particularly interested—the serious neurosis cases. If there is to be a Division on this matter I shall vote for the first Amendment which has now been discussed.

Dr. Haden Guest: Could I make sure that the conditions of a man suffering from nystagmus will be covered by the wording in the Bill? What I have in mind is this: There is no question that such cases will be covered during the time that a man is certified by the medical referee. It has often happened in my experience in dealing with men suffering from nystagmus that their condition has been put down to a neurotic state not arising out of their employment at all. One cannot say that it is really a mental disease in the accepted sense; it is a neurotic condition preying on the mind of the sufferer. Will that man be covered by the wording here? It seems to me that the Amendment to be moved by the Government is a limiting one which might have the effect of excluding certain things instead of including them, whereas the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend is one which does seem to include what is wanted, and if the Government wish to proceed with their Amendment they ought, I think, first to accept the hon. Member's Amendment so that they will not exclude anything while attempting to include something.

Mr. Graham White: As we are considering the Government's Amendment, will my hon. Friend explain——

The Chairman: We are not discussing the Government's Amendment, though it has been referred to in passing. The hon. Member should address his remarks to the desirability of otherwise of adopting this first Amendment.

Mr. White: I will raise my point later.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The reason why we are resisting this Amendment is that the word "disease" includes neurosis, a mental disease, and therefore it would be a pity to insert a word which might throw doubt on the wide connotation of the word "disease." The hon. Member who alluded to the later Amendment is quite right in saying that it deals with a different subject. It does deal with cases where it


might be said there was no disease because the condition was congenital. Our reason for resisting this Amendment is that the word "disease" in the Bill includes mental disease and therefore it is unnecessary to add these words.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the word "disease" includes mental disease. His eminence at the Bar makes that statement of great value, though not necessarily binding on the courts. Can he give us his authority for making that statement?

The Attorney-General: I do not think it has ever come before the courts, because the courts give to words their ordinary meaning. There is no doubt that mental disease is disease—I do not know that I can carry it further—and neurosis is a recognised form of disease. In the present state of medical science and the use of the word there is no shadow of doubt that the word "disease" includes both what are called physical diseases and what are called mental diseases.

Sir Douglas Thomson: In regard to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) do I understand the position to be that if this Amendment is refused the ex-Service man whose disease does not arise from imperfect development will be excluded?

The Attorney-General: No, he will be included, because he will be suffering from a mental disease. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend that he should be included. I must not trespass upon the later Amendment, but it is the intention to include people whose mental infirmities arise from mental disease as well as, under a later Amendment, people whose mental infirmity arises not from disease but from a congenital condition.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I say, in withdrawing this Amendment, that I think the Ministry may find in actually administering this provision that they will be in a difficulty? I can assure them that the words I have copied here would not be in the Royal Warrant, which is under the control of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, were it not necessary to insert those words. When a person claims benefit from any State funds the

mere fact that he is suffering from neurosis is not sufficient to substantiate the claim; he must be totally incapacitated from following any employment and he is not of necessity so disabled by neurosis and kindred troubles. Anyway, it is no use challenging the Government. I know that I should be defeated, but I am pleased that I have been able to bring this problem to the attention of the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to add:
(2) For the purposes of the definitions contained in the preceding subsection the expression "disease" shall be construed as including a physical or mental condition arising from imperfect development of any organ.
The reason for this Amendment has already been given. It is to bring in those who may have been excluded. It has been suggested that this Amendment may have the effect of an excluding Amendment, but the very purpose of it is to prevent anybody from being excluded. The imperfect development of the optic nerve may cause blindness. That might not be referred to as a disease and it might not be a deformity according to the definition, and to cover cases where the disability arises congenitally, this Amendment has been put down, so that they may be included and not excluded.

Dr. Guest: Has the Attorney-General considered the question of definition in regard to the word "organ"? Is the mind an organ? The brain is, of course, an organ. What is the relation between the mind and the brain? I am not attempting to raise fine or subtle points which do not exist; I am attempting to get a definition which will stand up when the question comes up in a court of law. Supposing an individual has a mental defect which, as is often the case, cannot be correlated with any observable physical defect of any organ, does that case come within the definition if the mental defect is something of a congenital character?

The Attorney-General: Certainly it would come in, because it would be in already. Those we are trying to bring in by this definition are those which can be seen or those which are known and can be defined. I do not think the hon. Member need worry about the question coming before the courts. I cannot see it coming


before the courts. Nor will the question of mind or brain be one on which the Advisory Committee will be called upon to adjudicate. It is the action of the mind or brain, however constituted, that will be the determining factor.

Mr. Graham White: I come to the point which I attempted to raise when I was out of Order a moment ago. It seems that we are getting into a highly rarefied argument over the difference between organic and inorganic. When I first read the Amendment I thought it was definitely a limiting Amendment. Without going into the refinements which have been referred to, could my hon. Friend assure me that there is no limiting purpose in the Amendment and that it is the intention to have in the Bill a Clause which will embrace every reasonable case?

Mr. Tomlinson: I can give that assurance fully. That is our purpose and intention.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how it comes about that he is running away from one of the recommendations in his own Report? The Tomlinson Report specifically states that rehabilitation should cover mental and physical diseases, and I have always understood that when Bills came before Parliament they were related more or less to the recommendations of the Committee which went into the problem. Here, however, the Department runs away from the words used in its own Report.

Mr. Messer: I cannot see where the confusion arises. If we read it as saying that the definition shall include—we are saying nothing about construing—it has got to include something, because the smaller part is a part of the whole. What we do is to lay it down definitely that we include in the ordinary recognised description a description that can be dealt with. I think the Amendment puts the matter very definitely as showing that we include something that might not have been included if these words were not there.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that a great many physicians say that most physical diseases are mental?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Vocational training courses.)

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "may" and to insert "shall".
I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I feel there is some substance in this point. The provisions in Clause 2 are very valuable. They provide for the vocational training and industrial rehabilitation of these different classes of disabled persons. As I read it, the Clause is permissive. For example, if we should have another Geddes Committee after the war and it recommended all sorts of economies, according to the complexion of the Government of the day, the valuable provisions contained in the Clause might be washed out altogether. I therefore, desire to substitute "shall" for "may" so that these valuable provisions shall be ensured for all time to disabled persons covered by the Bill.

The Attorney-General: From time to time we have discussed the circumstances in which it is appropriate to use "may" or "shall." Undoubtedly, according to every precedent, "may" is the correct word in this case. Parliament empowers a Minister, enjoins him, to take a certain course, certain administrative steps, but is not imposing a legal duty. Parliament will retain control of the actions of the Minister. It would be impossible to impose a legal duty on the Crown or on a Minister to make arrangements of this kind and to set up courses, and so on. In the circumstances, it is undoubtedly better to use "may" and keep "shall" for cases where Parliament can impose a legal duty.
Hon. Members will be aware that there are cases where one can go to the court to get an order of mandamus against a Minister, but quite certainly that could not apply here. It must be left to the administrative and parliamentary field. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, because it is quite clear to me that "may" is right in this case. As to what may happen in the future, whatever words we used now could not control this House then. If Parliament were swept by a great wave of economy and it were proposed to cut down this, that or the other, it would be for the then Parliament to decide what to do. The mere substitution of "shall" for


"may" would not stop Parliament then from doing anything it wanted to do.

Amendment negatived.

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 24, at the end, to insert:
Until such time as facilities are available for training all disabled persons, preference in selection for such courses shall be given to those disabled as a result of a war injury, a war risk injury, or detention or a war service injury. The words 'war injury,' a 'war risk injury,' or 'detention' and a 'war service injury' shall have the same meanings as in the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order. This Amendment contains a principle which runs through several Amendments later in the list. I am wondering, Major Milner, whether we can settle once and for all, in the Debate on this Amendment, this principle of preference for ex-Service men as such.

Major Manningham-Buller: I think it would be very convenient to deal with two of these Amendments together, namely, that which I am moving and a later Amendment standing in my name, in Clause 3, page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert:
Until such time as facilities are available for training all disabled persons, preference in selection for such courses shall be given to those disabled as a result of a war injury, a war risk injury, or detention or a war service injury. The words war injury,' a 'war risk injury,' or detention' and a 'war service injury shall have the same meanings as in the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943.
There is a certain similarity between them.

The Chairman: I agree that it will be convenient to discuss the Amendment now before the Committee with the one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just mentioned.

Major Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has drawn attention to the importance and value of vocational training, and industrial rehabilitation courses. No one can doubt that those courses will serve a most useful and valuable function. The purpose of my Amendment is precautionary. It is designed to achieve that, if there is a queue in the future for ad-

mission to these courses, the war-disabled shall be at the right end of the queue and not at the wrong end. During the Second Reading Debate, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that it was not possible to make even an approximate estimate of the number of disabled persons who will qualify under the Bill, and that the number at the end of the war would be still more uncertain. Of course it does not follow that every person who is on the register will require training in one of these courses. It may be that a considerable proportion can be better trained in the factories where they are to do their work. I believe that at the present moment a good many vacancies exist in the training centres of the Ministry of Labour, because training can be given mare effectively in the factories.
However that may be, the number of those who will require training in these courses must be uncertain. How can we possibly say therefore that we shall provide enough premises and that there will be a sufficient trained staff to deal with all those who require training at once? It seems to me that we cannot ignore the possibility that there will be more people wanting admission to the courses than the courses can take, or the possibility that a number of persons will be kept waiting for admission. I do not want to see the war-disabled kept waiting, because their claims demand priority and should receive it.
The Minister has pointed out the difficulty of distinguishing between war-disabled and the disabled from other causes. I appreciate the difficulty. Very often when you draw a line, there are borderline cases, and if you fail to draw a line you do far more injustice and injury. In my view that is likely to be the result from the failure to draw a line in this case. If no line is drawn, men who have met with disablement from any cause whatever, whether from indulging in criminal pursuits, or while proceeding to Blackpool for a holiday or after three years' service in the war, at El Alamein or elsewhere, will, upon a superficial examination, appear to have a similar degree of disability; but we have to ask whether it is true to say that a soldier who loses his leg after three years' service, is an equal competitor in the labour market with a man who, until the day he lost his leg, was employed in the trade to which he hopes to go back. Is it true


to say that a disabled soldier has had an equal opportunity of amassing war savings, and is in exactly the same position as a disabled civilian? The cases are not the same, but even if they were, I think the public view would be that if there is to be any priority the war disabled should receive that priority. May I quote words which the Minister used at the Mansion House in 1942? In his speech there he said:
These men have saved us, the nation and civilisation, and I believe it is essential that the country as a whole should recognise that they are entitled to full wages and an honourable future as a just compensation and return for their sacrifices.
These Amendments are designed to secure that they shall not have to wait for that compensation and return for their sacrifices. I hope they will be accepted.
I would like to say one word, if I may, as to where the line should be drawn, if it is to be drawn at all. There is the difficulty of defining the words "war disabled." In this Amendment the definition is taken from the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, so that if the Amendment is accepted all soldiers, airmen, sailors, men of the Merchant Navy, Civil Defence personnel and civilians who would be entitled to a pension by reason of an injury through enemy action or through the ordinary incidence of service, all those who would be entitled to such a pension, will be entitled to a priority in admission to these courses. I would emphasise, if I may, that this is not an Amendment seeking to exclude civilians. It is merely an Amendment seeking to arrange the queue, if there is to be a queue, in its proper order.
The Minister recognised that there was a psychological factor involved. He said on Second Reading that he proposed if he could to deal with the matter administratively. With the greatest respect to the Minister, personally I feel some doubt whether one who does not recognise the existence of the distinction will deal with this matter administratively in a way which will give satisfaction to those who think that there is a very real distinction deserving of recognition. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading that there would be no hesitation in introducing such measures as may be necessary to ensure that the needs of ex-Service men would be first met if the needs of all are not adequately met. I would

say, why not make quite sure now by the insertion of these words that the needs of the ex-Service man are first met if the Government's expectations are not fulfilled? I hope this Amendment will be accepted by the Government.

Captain Cobb: I beg to support the Amendment. I hope that the Minister replying will show a conciliatory spirit because I assure him that we who have put the Amendment down consider that a most vital principle is involved and we attach the greatest possible importance to this principle of giving preference to the disabled ex-Service man being established, in the Bill. It may be that the problem of training and resettling men and women after the war will be smaller than most of us now think. Personally I think that possibility is so extremely unlikely that we have to envisage a very large problem, possibly a problem even larger than the one which faced us after the 1914–18 war. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary very honestly admitted in his Second Reading speech that he had no idea of how big this problem would be. The fact that he has no idea of what kind of provision, what amount of provision, will be necessary makes it extremely difficult for me at any rate to understand the confidence which he subsequently expressed when he said that the Government believed that the Bill will make satisfactory provision for all the disabled.
I think the Government must realise that probably the greatest difficulty in the matter of training disabled persons after the war will be finding suitable instructors, and in this they will find themselves in very active competition with the President of the Board of Education. I feel most strongly, in view of the very strong likelihood that there will be a shortage of training facilities available to start with, that preference should be given to the ex-Service man and woman. It is true that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in his Second Reading speech assured the House that the special claims of the war disabled will be kept constantly in mind. This phrase about "active consideration being given to this or that" is one with which the Committee is very familiar. In fact when I heard the Joint Parliamentary Secretary make use of it I wondered for a moment whether he had borrowed a brief from the Minister without Portfolio. It


is an answer that the Committee have had time and again from the Government when they have been questioned about post-war plans.
Even this extremely vague assurance which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave us was offset by my right hon. Friend in replying to the Debate when, in answer to an interruption from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) he declared that he found it difficult to see that there was any difference between work in a factory and attacking the enemy. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend was showing rather less perspicacity than he really has. I have far too much respect for the intelligence and good sense of my right hon. Friend than to think he really believes there is no difference. There is a phrase which is being constantly used, "We are all in the front line now," the suggestion being that everybody is experiencing the same kind of hardship as a result of the war. That, of course, is utter nonsense and I do not believe for one moment that the general mass of people in the country think that there is no difference between the contribution which is being made to the winning of this war by the civilians and by the men in the fighting Services. The Minister of Labour tells us that he finds great difficulty in distinguishing between the man he directs to war work and the man he directs to the fighting Services. There is really all the difference in the world. After all a man who is directed for war work enjoys safety; he does not suffer the separation from his family which is endured by the men in the Services: he has far better wages than the man in the Services and he enjoys a very large measure of his peace time rights and privileges, whereas the man who is directed into the Army, Navy or Air Force, or the Civil Defence Services for that matter, suffers hardship and risks, separation from his family, and low rates of wages which in my judgment entitle him to a very large measure of preference from the Government and from the country.
In fact if the Government refuse to accept this Amendment they are saying that the ex-Service man who has been broken in the service of the country must take his chance on an equal footing with a conscientious objector who has been directed on to a farm and has been disabled in the course of his employment.

That proposition is one which the country must never accept and I find it very difficult to understand why there should be any reluctance to accept this principle we are seeking to establish in view of the fact that Clause 6 of the Bill dealing with reinstatement in civil employment states categorically that the persons to whom the Measure applies are male persons who, since May, 1939, have entered upon a period of wartime service in the Armed Forces, and female persons who have been directed to various women's Services and to persons in the Civil Defence. I find it very difficult to understand why this preference should be given in one Bill presented by the Minister while it is refused in another case. In time of war it is general for the Government and the country to show a generous spirit to our fighting men, and it is regrettable that, as so often happens when the danger is past, this generous spirit is apt to evaporate. It is going to be a pretty poor look-out for the ex-Service man if, even in wartime, this House shows a reluctance to give him any preference in the post-war world. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour (Mr. Bevin) in his Second Reading speech said that he proposed to deal with this matter administratively and not in the Bill. We demand most emphatically that this principle should be put in the Bill, and we are not likely to be satisfied with any answer that the Government gives us which does not concede this point.

Mr. Messer: Does this Amendment give to civilians who are injured as a result of the war the priority given to the Service men?

Captain Cobb: Injured as a result of enemy action?

Mr. Messer: Yes.

Captain Cobb: We are not seeking to exclude the civilian disabled by the war. All we are asking is that the man or woman disabled as a result of his country's service, or as a result of his service in Civil Defence, should have a preference in training over the ordinary civilian casualty.

Mr. Messer: I understand the hon. and gallant Member to mean that anybody who is injured as the result of an air raid will get priority.

Hon. Members: No.

Major Manningham-Buller: I do not think that is quite the position because as I understand the Act which provides a pension if he is entitled to a pension, then he will also be entitled to priority under this Amendment.

Mr. Messer: Does not a civilian injured as the result of enemy action have the opportunity of going home and getting high wages and other amenities?

Captain Cobb: One has to draw a line somewhere. What we are seeking to establish is that a man who has been injured by the enemy has a right to preferential treatment, as compared with the civilian who has been knocked down by a motor car. I want to finish on this note. I feel it is essential that the men and women who have served at this time should realise that Parliament is vitally concerned with their interests and is determined to defend those interests whatever the cost may be. We attach the greatest importance to this and I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Messer: I am certain that this Committee wants to do justice to the men and women who are serving the country in such a courageous way. I cannot for a moment believe that the Committee would be unmindful of the great sacrifice made by our soldiers, sailors and airmen. I am also certain that they do not want to create any fresh injustice. I do not know whether the framers of this Amendment realise its full implication. It means that one of those very brave men of whom we think so much might not himself be injured but might have a son congenitally diseased or injured for whom he would do much more than he would for himself and he might see one of his colleagues get priority over his own son. I am certain if choice were given to such a soldier he would decide that he was fighting not for a selfish purpose but for the purpose of creating a new world. I do not want to deny any civilian any of the benefits that may arise from resolutions passed by this House but the anomalies in this Amendment are going to prove almost overwhelming to those who will have to administer it. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said in answer to my question, there is a right of priority to somebody injured as the result of an air raid;

but there might be the case of a civilian walking along the street the next day on whom a coping stone fell and who could not prove that it was the result of the previous night's air raid. Such a civilian could not get priority and would be more fortunate if he had been in the air raid.

Captain Cobb: Surely that question arises on the point of whether he should have a pension or not?

Mr. Messer: That only proves you would have to go further into the difficulties created by this Amendment [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]. Well, if I were in the Ministry and had to administer it I should find it difficult to decide the justice in that. The hon. Gentleman said a person is injured indirectly as the result of enemy action, and I say there is no justice in that. The hon. Gentleman said that the soldier is entitled to it because he is away from his family for long periods of time and undergoes privations, and is wounded. Quite frankly I can understand those who are responsible for administration saying there must be degrees of priority, but it can be better done administratively if it be done justly. The truth is, that whenever we get into the realms of distinction laid down in an Act of Parliament, in addition to the borderline cases we come up against what in effect are impossibilities. If, however, it is left to the Department, where there may be some elasticity, and some measure of adjustment, and a recognition that there is a vacant place for a particular type of disability, where there is a vocational course, where there is a vacancy for the type of case that can benefit from it, the Amendment says it must be one of the classes mentioned for priority. You would be doing very much better service if you were to give that vacancy to a civilian who, because of his type of disability, was better fitted for the vacancy. Those things cannot be done by Act of Parliament. To lay it down in an Act of Parliament seems likely to create graver injustices than would be caused by leaving it to the discretion of the Minister.

Commander Galbraith: It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) is going in for a good deal of special pleading. I cannot see that this Amendment presents any great administrative difficulties. While I and my


hon. Friends who have placed this Amendment on the Paper feel that the advantages of these courses should be made available to all, we feel even more strongly that until facilities are available to all there are certain categories to whom preference should be given, for the State has a more direct responsibility for the disabilities of some than it has for the disabilities of others. It may be that the results of an accident in one's home or at one's work, or even when walking along the street, may have precisely the same effect as an injury received on the field of battle or when following some hazardous employment at the direction of the State, but no one could argue that the State was responsible in the former case or that it was not responsible in the latter. We would give a priority for those for whose disability the State has a primary responsibility, to whom it has cause for very deep gratitude, and in respect of whom it lies under a sense of very great obligation. The Report of the Tomlinson Committee, speaking of fractures, says that 30 per cent. are due to industrial accidents, 15 per cent. to road accidents, and the remainder are due to accidents which occur in one's house or at sports. Surely it would not be contended that those who receive injury on the football field, while out cycling, or while following their ordinary employment came within the same category as those injured in the service of the country. We feel that if anybody has to wait for treatment it should not be those whose disability has resulted from their being directed to work of national importance, and still less should it be those who are disabled on the field of battle.
I should like to take up in slightly more detail a point which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller) when he alluded to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Second Reading. The Minister referred to his difficulty in distinguishing between the war disabled, those disabled through being directed to a T.N.T. factory and those who risked their lives loading cargoes. I cannot see the difficulty in distinguishing between certain persons and people in those categories. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) deal with this matter, but I would like to carry it a stage further. What

happens to the man who is loading cargo when he is injured? As a result of a telephone call, an ambulance comes to him within a few minutes. In another few minutes he is in a hospital, where every device known to medical science is available to him. How different when a man is injured on the field or on board ship, in the Navy or in the Mercantile Marine. A man injured on the field probably has to lie out for hours, then receive first aid, then be transported for miles perhaps to a casualty clearing station. I hope that hon. Members will have in mind the pictures we have seen in the illustrated Press of the sufferings and hardships that men have had to undergo in New Guinea and Burma while on their way to casualty clearing stations. Then they may have to wait for days before receiving hospital treatment. The same applies to men injured at sea. They have to wait until their ship arrives in port before hospital treatment is available.
These men start under an initial disadvantage. We are in duty bound to make up, as far as possible, for their disadvantages by giving them preference in training, in rehabilitation, and also in employment. There is another aspect of this matter. Whenever anyone is injured seriously it results in great anxiety to those nearest and dearest to him. But what a difference there is between the anxiety caused to the relatives of those who are injured in this country and those who are injured in the field or on board ship. In the case of a man injured here, his relatives know within a very short period the nature of his injuries and how he is progressing from day to day, and they can see him daily. But the wife of a soldier or a sailor gets a brief intimation that he has been injured, she hears no more for weeks perhaps, and it may be months before she can see him. If this Bill goes through in its present form there will be additional anxiety for such people while they sit waiting for their husbands to get places at these courses, while in the meantime they may see other people who have been injured at football getting the places before them. That is unthinkable, and it is not in accordance with the wishes of the people of this country. The Tomlinson Report says:
acceptance of the principle of general eligibility will not prevent the introduction of (1) any system of preference as between different causes of disablement as may seem advisable …


We accept that principle, but we say that preference is not only advisable, but essential, if justice is to be done. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry referred to the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary, who promised that the needs of the ex-Service men would be dealt with as a matter of priority. I have no reason to doubt the good faith or the good intentions of the Parliamentary Secretary, but this Bill should provide for the special claims of the war disabled. It is of such importance that it should be decided in this House, not left to the good intentions of Ministers.
If we could be convinced that the needs of all could be adequately met in the immediate post-war period, there would be no need for this Amendment, but I would remind the Committee of the situation. The Parliamentary Secretary alluded to the impossibility of ascertaining the extent of this problem at present. If that is so, we have no right to anticipate that facilities will be available to all in the immediate post-war period. In addition, the Tomlinson Report again and again stresses the difficulties that have to be overcome. It says:
Surgeons and nurses and specially-skilled personnel are in short supply. Buildings and apparatus are in short supply. There is a shortage of beds, there is an even greater shortage of nurses. The necessary increase in trained personnel cannot be brought about without the fullest co-operation between the authorities responsible for medical education, the training of masseurs and allied workers in rehabilitation—it must take time.
The impression I get is that time will be required. We cannot expect too much to start with. If that be correct, there can be no doubt that some of the disabled persons will be given the advantages of this Bill before others. Some must get priority. We ask simply that that priority shall be given to those who have suffered most, who have risked most, whose families have borne the greatest burden of anxiety, those to whom we principally owe our safety and security, those mentioned specifically in this Amendment, which I would press my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to accept, not only as a matter of justice but as a reflection of the feelings and sentiments of the great majority of the people of this country.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: There is one thing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston

(Captain Cobb) said, with which I very much agreed. He said that the comparison between men in industries here and those in the front line was somewhat ridiculous. There is a good deal of nonsense talked on this matter, even in connection with some of the most hazardous industries. The hardship that a man in industry suffers is not comparable with that which a man on active service has to suffer. But while I agree with that, I would point out that there are soldiers who have been in the front line who will be penalised if this Amendment is passed. There are, to my knowledge, men around my own district who have been injured in industry after taking part in fighting in this war. This Amendment would in fact penalise some of the people whom hon. Gentlemen opposite think they are helping. If I may say so, I sometimes think that those who are not closely associated with industry, and even those who are associated with industry, are extremely vague upon the decimation that takes place in industry every day. The extent of injury throughout the whole range of industry in normal times is colossal. I remember a friend of mine who served in the last war, and was one of those fortunate men who served right through on the front in Northern France and Belgium, in the whole sway back and forth, particularly on the Ypres front and Passchendaele, and were not wounded, but he was killed in the pit a fortnight after coming back from the war. Tragically, a son of his was killed within three years of the man himself being killed.
Those of us who are opposing this Amendment are just as anxious to protect the interests of the soldier as hon. Gentlemen opposite. The great bulk of the fighting men have taken their part in industry, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) said, they have people at home, some of them sons, and the operation of the Amendment would prevent a son or daughter who might be blind from receiving consideration. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is how I understand it. It is no good trying to avoid the logic of the situation that the soldier is associated in the main with the average working-class home. His brothers or father might be penalised if the Amendment were accepted. As I said in my Second Reading speech, you cannot dissociate the ordinary man in industry and


actual working practice from the soldier himself. I doubt very much whether the soldier himself would like to see such a distinction made. I shall deal with the extension of this later on, and I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment, which is the beginning of the general principle of separating the soldier from the ordinary civilian and it will make, in actual practice, the working of this very magnificent proposal almost impossible.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I support the Amendment because it is a most reasonable one. In the first words of it, "Until such time as facilities are available for training all disabled persons," this preference is to be given. We also support the view of the Bill that every one must come into the scheme as soon as possible, but what we are saying to-day is, that there is a first duty to those who have been directly injured by the war. It is not only the soldiers or those who have special communication with them who feel like that; I have had the privilege of mixing to a great extent with working men, and I find that the working man everywhere is anxious that some such priority as this should be given. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) rightly referred to the duties of the State in this matter, but it is not only the State that has a duty here but this House. We really are the trades union leaders for the members in the Forces and we have a prime duty to see that, contained within the words of the Bill itself, this priority for the time being is given.
What really does the Bill, as it stands, now mean? It means that every one who is disabled is in the same position. I take the extreme case. Suppose someone who objects strongly to war, whether a conscientious objector or not, is injured; you are putting him in exactly the same place with the same priority as someone who has been injured or captured by the enemy, and has returned here after years, it may be, of suffering. I do not believe that the country would stand for that. This Committee would be doing less than justice if it allowed the Minister simply to say, "You must leave this to me; I will protect their interests." I believe the Minister was very genuine on Second Reading, but, in fact, this Amendment gives effect to the words he used, and the

House is anxious to give effect to them too. Particularly as the Bill now stands, and when even the regulations are not subject to the affirmative approval of the House, it becomes more than ever important that the Committee should insist that the Minister shall give effect to what I believe to be the general wishes of the House. Certainly, it has been the effect of the speeches already made.
I want to refer to two points made from the other side of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) referred to a border-line case, which I am bound to say, with great respect, was a case of special pleading, where a tile or something from a roof fell on to a man and injured him, and it might have been caused by an air-raid. All would be taken into consideration in the case where an air-raid had occurred the night before. If he could prove that the reasonable cause of the accident was the tile dropping on him, he would be entitled to the same preference as anybody else. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) referred to miners who had been soldiers being sent back to work in the pits and then being injured. I believe that any soldier who came back uninjured to work in the pit would be only too anxious to take the risks with the other people employed in the pit. I think that a case has been made out for the Amendment. We are entitled to ask the Government to give effect to the general view expressed in this Committee and we ought not to be satisfied with an ordinary assurance from the Minister, or even a promise, that the matter would be considered in the Regulations.

Mr. Bellenger: There have been charges levelled against Members on this side of special pleading but according to the attention I have given to the speeches made from both sides of the Committee, I should say that this special pleading is not limited to one side only. I heard my hon. and gallant Friend specially pleading the case of the disabled soldier, that the soldier facing the enemy and the seaman on the sea are not able to get such prompt medical attention as the civilian in the factories, but the hon. Member knows the Navy, the Merchant Navy and the Army very well, and he knows that by no means are all of these people actively engaged in combating the enemy. This question in another aspect


has been a constant source of irritation both in the last war and in this war. It is what is known as the base-wallahs getting special consideration when it comes to decorations and honours. It is getting into dangerous water when we raise the issue as it is being raised to-day. It is easy to be sentimental. I occasionally do it myself. For what purpose? Not for priority for the Services. No, but for equality of the Services with those civilians who are staying behind, whether directed into industry or not. I do not want special preference for the Services and I do not believe the Services want it either. When these men and women come back after four or five years of war, perhaps many of them after a lesser period, they will be civilians and will have to take their part in the life which, we hope, will then open up to them. I view with great apprehension this dividing of the country into two classes. Hon. Members opposite often accuse us on these Benches of being engaged in class warfare and I can conceive of no greater danger to this country than to put the soldier, sailor, airmen or merchant seaman in a specially privileged class after the war.

Commander Galbraith: We are trying to make these people equal, to give them a more equal chance. They have had all the "downs" and should have a little of the "ups" now.

Mr. Bellenger: That is all very well. That would be quite good enough in some of the popular publications, which, I have no doubt, would appeal only to the emotions and not to the intelligence. I am going to try to appeal to the intelligence of hon. Members opposite, if I can. What does the Amendment say? It does not put the soldier, sailor and airman in a specially privileged class; it includes the whole of the civilian population. If I understand the Amendment aright the war risk injury can include the whole of the civil population.

Major Manningham-Buller: May I ask the hon. Member whether he did not say in the course of his speech on Second Reading that he came down on the side of a preference for the ex-Service man?

Mr. Bellenger: That is a typical example of misquoting, and I am surprised at the hon. and gallant Gentleman taking one phrase out of the context of

my speech. What I said was not that I am in favour of a preference for the Service man, but if we are to have the same scramble for jobs after this war, then I come down on his side. But that is where hon. Members opposite and I disagree fundamentally. They are visualising the same conditions after this war as we had before the war, otherwise the whole Amendment falls to the ground.

Sir Douglas Thomson: Read the Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger: I am hoping that the Minister of Labour is going to do a complete job and not half a job. If the Ministry of Labour are only intending to provide facilities for that limited class to which hon. and gallant Members have referred, then I am against this Bill entirely. I am hoping that the Ministry of Labour—although I agree they do not quite realise the magnitude of these problems I believe in the genuineness of the Minister and his Department—will regard this problem to the extent that in no circumstances will they neglect to provide facilities for training and rehabilitation of any class of disabled in this country. If they do that job properly there is no need for the Amendment. If they do not, I agree with hon. Members opposite, there will be need for some sort of preference to be shown, But how pessimistic hon. Members opposite are.

Major Thorneycroft: The hon. Member was equally pessimistic in his speech. He said, "If the time ever comes, I fear it may," so that pessimism is not restricted to one side.

Mr. Bellenger: That is a very good interruption, I must admit. "I fear it may" is quite true. Shall I tell hon. Members why I fear it may? Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will pay attention to this. I fear that hon. Members opposite, whether they belong to the Tory reform group or not, will prevent us from putting into operation measures which we sincerely believe will prevent this scramble for jobs after the war. That is why I said, "I fear it may", and my hon. and gallant Friend asked for that reply.

Sir D. Thomson: May I interrupt the hon. Member? If, by some conceivable error or general incompetence, other steps are taken under this training scheme he will be glad to see that there is a


justifiable preference given to the ex-Serviceman?

Mr. Bellenger: I am trying to prevent a few hon. Members opposite continuing the attitude which prevailed before the war. The Services are not looking forward to conditions whereby there will be only a limited number of vacancies for training and rehabilitation. The Services are looking forward to a much more comprehensive order of society than that after this war. Therefore, I am bound to say that I cannot see the point in my hon. Friend's argument in supporting this Amendment to-day. I have to confess that there are many ex-Servicemen of the last war who will not be covered by this Amendment if it is carried. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) referred to ex-Servicemen serving in this war coming out unscathed and going into industry, who may not get a preference under this Amendment, because they do not come within the categories defined in this Amendment. There are thousands of ex-Servicemen of the last war who will be excluded if that happens.
The other day I visited a cordite factory—I am not permitted to say where it is—and saw women and girls engaged in jobs which, I say frankly, as having some experience of war, I would not like to undertake. The soldier goes into battle and it is true he has the occasion to refuse to fight against the enemy. Of course, a man would be a coward, but there are many involuntary cowards, sometimes. I am not condoning that. All I say is that they have the occasion to do it. Even if they do not, and go forward against the enemy, after two or three days they are relieved and taken out of the line to rest. That is true of the Army, but not of the girls and women in cordite and similar war factories who are there day after day, night after night, week after week. Those who have seen something of the manufacture of cordite will realise this aspect.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The hon. Member has made a statement which should not go unchallenged. He has said that troops in the line get relieved after two or three days. Is he aware that men of the Eighth Army have been overseas for four summers and have fought month after month without being relieved?

Mr. Bellenger: I am arguing from the general and not from the specific. My hon. Friend's experience of the Army may be somewhat limited to certain operations of this war. There is no doubt men are relieved. I do not know what was the experience of my hon. and gallant Friend in Egypt, but I suggest that he was not always in direct contact with the enemy. He seems to admit that. What I am saying is that the women in the cordite factories are facing the enemy day and night. Are we to exclude, possibly, daughters of Servicemen or their wives from the facilities granted? I submit that Servicemen may be under a handicap in this war. I submit, as a Serviceman with a son engaged in this war, that if there is any preference I would far rather that my son should have it than that I should have it if I were eligible. I beg the hon. Members opposite to be very careful lest they divide the country into two artificial classes. Let them give their support to the schemes the Minister of Labour sets up for these people. I believe the Minister of Labour can do it, and there should not be any man or woman denied the opportunity of rehabilitation through the facilities to be granted by the Ministry of Labour merely because one happens to be in khaki and another one in mufti happens to be sitting in a cinema enjoying himself when the bombs drop. In my advocacy for a considerable time during this war for the ex-Serviceman, I have done what I considered to be my duty to call attention to legitimate grievances, and have not always received assistance or help from some serving Members opposite in that respect. I want to see the position, which hon. Members opposite have mentioned—the position of inferiority between the Service and civilian population in this war—removed. We are now sending men into the mines, many of them sons of serving men who do not want to go there, who have a conscientious objection to going there——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I think we had better not go into that question; it is getting rather wide.

Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps I had better withdraw "conscientious" and say "men who have a rooted objection to going into the mines." I say that when you are conscripting a nation in that manner you have got to make adequate


provision for all of them. When you are directing them into the mines, where it will be possible for them to be injured in the course of their war occupation you are going to create a dangerous situation if you ignore their claims. I beg of hon. Members opposite to try and avoid the emotional appeal which can always be made on these questions of fair treatment for the Serviceman and to reason this Amendment out on logical, intellectual and intelligent grounds, because that is the only argument that I am prepared to listen to.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: The Parliamentary Secretary, moving the Second Reading of this Bill, when he had seen some Amendments on the Paper raising this issue of preference, referred to the principle of this Bill that a privileged or special class of person, namely, all the disabled, should be given a special quota of employment in the general field of industry. One of the factors which brought about the almost unanimous Second Reading was the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary in the first instance, and by the Minister later on, that, if it proved to be necessary, they would through administrative action see that the ex-Serviceman in the one place—that was the Minister speaking—and the war-disabled in the other—that was the Parliamentary Secretary—were first considered. Well now, it almost involves them in a matter of honour to carry out that pledge should that eventuality arise. I hold that having regard to the Second Reading granted to them unanimously, the Minister and his assistant are in honour bound so long as they hold office. Did I understand the Minister to say——

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I made that statement with a view to binding the Department, not only during my term of office, but in the administration of this Bill permanently.

Sir I. Fraser: I am very grateful to the Minister for that. That is an intention which I am sure the House will appreciate, and with which the country will find itself in very great sympathy. It has been the practice of the Ministry of Labour—which I still praise—for the last 20 years to give something in the nature of administrative preference to ex-Servicemen. When an employer was inquiring for labour, many branches of the Ministry of Labour would

put forward names of men and thus give an administrative preference, but I suggest they will not be able to do that if this Bill is passed unless we amend it in some way such as that suggested by the Member who moved this Amendment. It is one thing for the Minister of Labour to put ex-Servicemen forward and carry out the directions of the Ministry when there is no specially defined duty devolving upon the Ministry. It is quite another matter when a statutory duty has been defined and laid down by Parliament. It sets up a special privileged class consisting of disabled persons and by the will of Parliament it says they shall have a preference over ordinary non-disabled persons in securing employment. They all have equal rights—civilian, soldier and air raid warden. If, after the Bill was passed, the Minister then said he could place these people in front of the others he would be acting contrary to the intentions of the Statute and it would therefore be impossible for the Ministry to carry out administrative preference after the Act was passed, unless the Bill gave him the power to do it.
I have great hope that the Government will meet some of the later Amendments which are on the Paper. If they are to do so they cannot carry out those later Amendments unless, in the meantime, they have provided training facilities for ex-Service groups. Hon. Members opposite have said that we will be depriving particular people of benefits. Let us examine the equities as between these various groups. For 20 years the idea of preference for disabled has been in the minds of the leaders of the British Legion, who have advocated it from time to time. The Minister has told us that it has been in his mind and in the minds of his trade union friends for a very long time. Many enlightened people have had in mind the idea of helping the disabled but not until war comes along and dramatises the situation and presents the nation with the certainty that many young fighting men will be disabled and not until we have a National Government do we get Parliament and the country ready to pass this Measure. I think that without doubt the Measure comes to the front and falls to be considered at this time because of the feeling for ex-Servicemen.
That being so, we, who represent those men to some extent, and who also have many friends among disabled civilians, say


we will support the Government in including in this Measure severely disabled civilians. But let it not be forgotten that far from civilians getting a bad—deal under this Bill they are with all respect exceedingly fortunate to be coming into the Bill. I rejoice that they are; I wish them good luck. I do not sympathise with one or two Amendments which seek to put them out. I cordially agree with those who say that until there is provision for all, the ex-Servicemen must come first. We are asked from the other side, "Are you not inconsistent because you stretch from the soldier to the war risk injury, the A.R.P. cases and such like?"

Mr. Bellenger: The civilian population, surely.

Sir I. Fraser: My hon. Friend says that it is the whole of the civilian population but it is not; it is the whole of the population who suffer a particular risk. As I have said, I am glad that they should come in, but at the same time you have to find some place to draw this line which carries with it the wish of Parliament and the country and it is administratively more convenient and more equitable to draw it where my hon. and gallant Friend has drawn it. We have already defined the class of persons who suffer from war disability or war risk injuries. They have already been catered for by Acts of Parliament and they are recognised by those Acts of Parliament. It seems logical, therefore, that they should be defined as such for the purposes of this Bill.
I must confess to being a little disappointed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I had thought that he would have come down on this side, but instead he threw it into the House that at this time this party or some other group will block reconstruction through some objection to Socialism, shall we say, or to schemes which he or his friends may have in mind for providing employment for all. He said that we were intent upon blocking such schemes and that we wanted to ensure a place in the sun for ourselves, which does not seem in line with the friendly co-operation which has existed between him and us in many matters relating to ex-Servicemen. All of us hope for employment for all, but if there is not let each Member ask himself, "Who comes first?"

Mr. Tomlinson: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I give the Government's attitude to this Amendment and to this question. I find myself in a position of having been able to have made every speech made on both sides of the House. It may be strange but we all want to do the same thing. What we are doing is questioning whether or not it can be done in a certain way. The hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb), said that if there was to be a queue ex-Servicemen should be at the right end. None of us want there to be a queue but we are all agreed that if there is the ex-Serviceman should be at the right end of it. But where I part company with my hon. and gallant Friend is this: I say, and the Government says, that by the use of the administrative machine it is possible to guarantee that he will be at the right end of the queue, as he has been at the right end of it during the past two years. Can a case be brought forward under the administration of the interim scheme for dealing with the disabled in which an ex-Serviceman has been kept waiting while a civilian has been brought in? Surely the Government are entitled to ask the Committee for its confidence on the basis of its actions during the two years in which the interim scheme has been working. A definite assurance has been given that that which the Committee wishes to achieve can be achieved and will be achieved. There is also the further assurance that if there is any failure of any forthcoming Minister—which nobody mentioned but which might be in the minds of some people—the House has its remedy. That, I think, would be the only reason for wanting to include this provision in the Bill. The Committee has had the definite assurance from the Minister to-day that the Department is pledged, and with this on record the matter is in the hands of the House at any time.

Mr. Hogg: We have heard arguments from the party opposite which pledge that party not merely to the view, apparently, that this can be dealt with administratively but that it ought not to be dealt with at all. That is the argument which was put forward by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) who was, I take it, speaking officially from the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Tomlinson: Perhaps if we keep our minds on the principles and do not try to


score debating points—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and try to help the disabled rather than point out the difficulties with which Parliament might be faced, we might arrive at a conclusion which will do all that we desire. I am quite certain in my own mind that if the Committee forced the Government to accept this Amendment it would not do what hon. Members are anxious that it should do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because wherever you draw a distinction or attempt to define a particular class there is always on the other side of the line an individual whose case everyone realises is just as good. Is the Committee convinced that where a man has been considered for pension and where the question has been whether his disability is attributable to war service, nobody has ever made a mistake?

Major Thorneycroft: The Parliamentary Secretary would not use that as an argument against having pensions?

Mr. Tomlinson: Of course not. What we are dealing with now is a particular class of people who are disabled and the primary thing I regret about the Debate to-day is that we seem to be attempting to set against each other two classes both of which are deserving, [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know we are not doing that but there is the danger that we might be thought to be doing that.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my hon. Friend forgive me but he said that he would not hesitate to take such steps as were necessary to put the war disabled first. We say, "Make sure you have the power to do it."

Mr. Tomlinson: I have been trying to convince the Committee that we have the power to do it. If we have not, we would have been doing it without power for two years and nobody has questioned it. The ex-Serviceman has always come first. I am not anxious that we should tell people who we know are deserving of treatment that they will come first. If someone else has to wait why tell him? Why not give him the hope that he will come in?
I am not entering into the competition in pessimism which has been going on today. Everybody is saying, "We want to make provision for all." I believe we

can. The Tomlinson Report has been quoted against me by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). I am glad because it gives me an opportunity to explain that whatever is decided and whatever definition is made under the administration some people have to wait. The whole question is whether they have to wait until you deal with somebody else. We have not made the same progress in medical science on every side. The ex-Serviceman who is suffering from a disease for which we have not got the cure at the moment, but in which we may be making progress, cannot be brought to the stage where he can take advantage of vocational training. Under this limited Amendment you would say to the Department that until medical science has progressed to the stage at which an ex-Serviceman suffering from heart trouble as a consequence of his war service is in a position to take advantage of vocational training we cannot put a civilian into a training centre.
That is what the Amendment means. It is not what hon. Members want it to mean but that is what it does mean. That is what you call upon the Department to carry out and it is because of that and similar difficulties that I must ask the Committee to accept the assurances which have been given that administratively every attempt will be made to meet the requirements which have been asked for. I am certain that our friends would not want to penalise an individual who had been injured in a given way after he had been in the Services. I am not thinking of the man who has been sent back to the pit. I am thinking of the man who has done a period of the service and has not been injured during that service but may have been in the front line. He comes home and then meets with an injury, whatever his work may be. My contention is that that man is just as much entitled to the benefit of this scheme as any other and no one should have priority over him in the sense of preventing his return to normality. Therefore I hope the Amendment will not be pressed from the standpoint of wanting to include any words in the Bill which will determine the Minister to act in a given way but that he will be at liberty to do all that he wants to do administratively, and probably do it better than he can possibly do it if you tie him down by this Amendment.

Major Thorneycroft: I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the position that he has just stated. There is a measure of agreement between him and my hon. Friends who have put down this Amendment. They and the Minister are anxious that preference, in some form or other, should be given to these men whom we broadly call ex-Servicemen. The Minister says he will do that by administering the Measure in a way that is not authorised by the Bill itself. That is to say, he will take the class that is set out in the Act and, without any specific authorisation, will give a preference to a particular part of that class. I do not think that is a very desirable way of proceeding. Views may change from time to time as to a particular class or how we define it. I think it is much better for the Committee to take the responsibility for laying down in the Bill the people to whom we want a preference given. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said he felt it was unfortunate that it might appear from the Debate that the case of the ex-Serviceman was being defended on this side only. I agree with him. I think it would be a tragedy that any impression should go out to the country that just one party was looking after the interests of the ex-Serviceman. That impression need not go out. It is open to hon. Members opposite to say that they want preference in some form or another given to these men, but that is not what has been said. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), who has been a great advocate for the case of the ex-Serviceman—everyone gives him full credit for that—asked us to be logical and intellectual and, I think, eloquent. I would ask him, at least, to be consistent.

Mr. Lawson: Shall we have an opportunity of discussing the wider aspects of this subject later? This question was asked in the earlier stages, and I have noticed a tendency to have a kind of Second Reading Debate on the subject of preference. This is a particular Amendment which has a limiting effect. I deliberately refrained from discussing the general aspect of the matter because of the limiting effect of the Amendment. If there is an opportunity I shall certainly deal further with it and support the line that I took in my speech.

Major Thorneycroft: I hope I have made it plain that I am dealing with a specific topic.

Mr. Mathers: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make it clear how the description "ex-Serviceman" fits in with the Amendment, because it seems to me that once a man becomes an ex-Serviceman he goes outside the scope of the Amendment?

Major Thorneycroft: I was going to deal with that aspect of the matter as it has been raised by hon. Members opposite. I do not think I need pursue the point raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. I was dealing with the question of consistency. Nowadays people are often making speeches in the House and in the country paying great tributes to the gallant work that our troops have done. In the Second Reading speech that the hon. Member made he made perfectly plain the view we all hold, that there may be a situation in which there is going to be some sort of scrambles to the extent that everyone will not be able to be dealt with at the same time, and that that would give a preference to the ex-Servicemen. If that goes out as his view throughout his constituency it is really a little disappointing to many who have learnt to respect him to find that on a matter of this kind we cannot count on his support.

Mr. Bellenger: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not wish to do me any injustice. I have always advocated, not preference for the ex-Serviceman but an equal opportunity with everyone else. As regards what I said on the Second Reading, I was not dealing with the subject of rehabilitation at all but with a much wider subject, which we shall debate later on, namely, the employment of ex-Servicemen.

Major Thorneycroft: I will not pursue the question of employment, because that is not raised in the Amendment. I am restricting myself to the question of vocational training centres. It is evident that the first step towards employment—indeed it comes first in the Bill—is to get men trained. If you do not do that, it is not much good talking in vague phrases about the jobs we are going to give them.

Mr. Bellenger: That will apply to fit as well as unfit men.

Major Thorneycroft: The hon. Member said he was going to show a preference, but now he is sadly lacking.
With regard to other points that have been raised by hon. Members opposite, I find it quite extraordinary to listen to some of their arguments. I think the term "special pleading" might well be applied to them and to the suggestion that a man might come back from the Services uninjured and then be injured in some industry and excluded. That is true, but would not that man be only too happy to know that his comrades were going to get the first chance of being trained for a job? The same sort of point was put by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who said that a soldier may come back and find his father and brothers at home. By this Amendment he will be put in a preferential position. The hon. Member asked what his attitude would be. I would rather ask what would be the attitude of his father and brothers. Would not they say, "Should not this man, who has borne the heat and burden of the day, be given a preference?" Then they use the old argument about the dividing line. You can always use an argument of that kind. It is true that it is difficult to draw a line but, by and large, there is no difficulty. I am not impressed by the difficulty of drawing a line of this kind. The people of the country know that there is a large section which has borne an especially heavy burden and another large section, which has to be catered for, but which has not borne such a heavy burden. I do not mind where my right hon. Friend draws the line. No doubt there will be hard cases on one side or the other. All that is just the special pleading that is put forward to obstruct any suggestion of that sort when a line has to be drawn at all. The right hon. Gentleman admits that it is administratively possible and he has promised to do it if he can. Why should he not put it in the Bill? If he leaves it in its present form how can he administer it in flat contradiction of the view expressed by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street? It would be grossly improper for him to do so under the conditions of the National Government. I beg the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and to meet the spirit of the Amendment.

Mr. Mathers: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman how he links up the ex-Serviceman, properly so called, with the Amendment?

Major Thorneycroft: I hoped that I had done that. There are two broad sections to be dealt with in the disabled class, one which has borne the heat and burden of the fight and another, just as important in many ways, but which has not gone through the same arduous hardships as the serving men. My hon. Friends who put down the Amendment have drawn the line widely and have included not only those who have done the actual fighting but those who have come under the Pensions Act. It might be argued that they ought to draw the line more narrowly. If that is the view of the Minister, let him draw it more narrowly, but we need not argue the point where to draw it provided that it is understood that those who have been engaged in the war should have a preference of some kind.

Sir Percy Harris: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has shown a great deal of emotion about the Amendment. I think the majority of the Committee are unanimous that everyone who has been disabled in the service of his country should have proper facilities for training. I will go further and say that he should be paid adequate wages until that training has been made available and finished. The Amendment is an admission of the failure of the Ministry of Labour. The House and the country will not be satisfied with anything less than that all men who have served their country overseas in any of the Services should be found a job or be given training until a job is available. The danger of the Amendment is that it will suggest to the country that that training will not be available except for the disabled men. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It does amount to that.

Major Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the Amendment? It says, "Until such time as facilities are available for training all"—that is in case the Government's hopes are not realised.

Sir P. Harris: The House, the country and the Servicemen will insist that there should be training for all and no privileges for some.

Major Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with a great deal of emotion. I would ask him to recognise that everybody wants training centres for


all, but until they are provided—and we all realise the difficulties of the changeover period—the Amendment asks that preference should be given to ex-Servicemen.

Sir P. Harris: I think that the Minister means business and that when these men come back from the Service either a job should be provided for them or training should be provided because they have been in the Services. The Amendment is a defeatist Amendment and is admitting failure to work the Ministry of Labour.

Major Lloyd: The remarks of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have clarified the feelings of the Committee. It is divided, like ancient Gaul, into three parts. The Government and those who have been speaking for the Amendment are in complete agreement on the principle of preference or priority. Both are substantially in complete disagreement with those who have spoken from the opposite side. Not one speaker from the Labour Benches has supported in any degree any preference or priority. On the contrary, they have opposed it. We are delighted to find that on the question of principle, which is our major objective, the Government are in full agreement. The Government, however, differ from those who are sponsoring the Amendment in that, while they are in agreement with giving preference or priority, they prefer to do it through administrative machinery. We prefer to have it down in black and white in the Bill. That is the clear cut issue and it is as well that we should get it clear in our minds.

Mr. Gallacher: It is desirable that there should be a little frank talking on this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) made a passing reference to the fact that Members on the other side were always concerned with privileges. That is true, and the privileges that they enjoy and that those for whom they speak enjoy depend upon the ruthless exploitation, the ill-treatment and the ill-consideration of the masses of the workers. The one thing that Tories have always expressed is a contempt and hatred for the working-class.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Is this entirely relevant to the Amendment,

which refers to "such time as facilities are available for training all disabled persons"?

The Deputy Chairman: I was beginning to wonder when it would be in Order.

Mr. Stephen: Surely a Member is entitled to a few introductory sentences.

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, a few.

Mr. Gallacher: The issue we are discussing is whether a man who has been giving service in industry and has been seriously disabled as a result should get less consideration than one who has served in the Forces. The Tories come forward to-day, like the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd), and particularly the so-called progressive Tories, and express what Toryism has always expressed, no regard or consideration for the workers. Take the case of two lads who are summoned for national service, and one is sent to the Army and one to the mines. The one who is sent to the Army loses a hand and the one who is sent to the mines loses an arm. Under the Amendment the one who is sent to the mines, because he is a worker, is to get no consideration. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Amendment demands that he should get less consideration than the one in the Army. Why are hon. Members so cowardly and ashamed to face up to their own attitude towards the working-class? Put in other words, the Amendment says that less consideration shall be shown to the men and women who are injured in the service of the country in industry if they are ordinary working-class people. We know the attitude of the ruling class and their contemptuous attitude towards the working people. That class are idle, useless, rotten parasites who have never been capable of doing a day's service in their lives. They pretend to be concerned about the lads in the Army. They are really concerned about trying to make divisions in the ranks of the working-class, for if they can get the working-class soldiers up against the working-class trade unionists, or the trade unionists against the working-class soldiers, they may feel that they will be able to hold on to privilege a little bit longer.
I hope that no worker in this country or in the Armed Forces will be taken in by the fraud, the duplicity and the


rotten deception that come from these people. I say with the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green—and this is where the test for the Tories comes in and this is what the Tories want to avoid—that if the Government are prepared to spend the necessary money every disabled man and woman, whether in the Services or the factories, can be given training or given pay while waiting training. That will take money, and the more money that is used for that the less there will be for the useless parasites and ornaments of society who should be wiped out entirely. If we got rid of the costly ornaments there would not have to be any discussion as to giving preference to one disabled man or woman as against another. How is it possible, in a country that has the wealth that this country has had and has, and that has the idle, useless parasites that this country has, that Members here should be discussing that a certain preference should be given to men or women who have suffered the most terrible injuries over others who have suffered similar injuries? If a man is blinded in the Army is there any of us who would not be willing to do everything we could to make life easier for him? Would we give less consideration to a man or woman blinded in industry? When we have the resources such as we have we should see that, whether a man is blinded in the Army or in industry, he should not lack for anything.
We have got the resources; why, therefore, should the Tories be allowed to take this hypocritical attitude in order to try and retain their own privileges which should have been disposed of long ago? It is not privileges for the soldiers that the Tories are concerned with; it is privileges for the Tories. They are uneasy in their seats just now at the way things are going. They are not sure that they are going to get back to the old comfort and security that they had. They feel that if they can get the forces of the working-class divided they will keep their seats secure. But we will keep the working-class forces united. The seats of the privileged will go, and when the wealth of the nation is at the disposal of the nation there will be no talk of treating blind or crippled men and women differently because they have got their injuries in different occupations.

Viscountess Astor: I hope that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will speak often in the country and tell the people exactly what they are up against. It will be very helpful to the country, and it will certainly be helpful to the Labour Party. I deplore that there should be any division about this Bill, for the whole country has welcomed it. I come from a Service town where people are rejoicing over the Bill, but I feel that the Government would have been wise to accept the Amendment. I agree with everything that has been said by the Government spokesmen and I know that they mean to give priority to the Services. I am not afraid of Ministers not honouring their word. I have watched Ministers of Pensions, and whether they have been of the Right or the Left they have always dealt honourably and fairly with all cases. The same applies to Ministers of Labour. I think, however, that for the Servicemen themselves it would be far better if they saw it stated in the law that they came first. We cannot compare them really with the people who have stayed at home. One has only to represent a town from which sailors have gone away for four, five or seven years to realise that. We cannot compare the people who are fighting the war abroad with the people who are staying at home, and nobody wants to do so. I am convinced that the whole of the country would prefer that the ex-Serviceman should come first. It would be a pity to get any question of ex-Servicemen on to a political basis. We avoided that after the last war. It would be fatal to have it that way. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment, because a lot of us feel that we must vote for it and because we know it is what the country at large wants.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I regret that there seems to have crept into this Debate a spirit of diversity. I say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), whose work I appreciate, that in the trade union movement we have been trying to get a Bill of this character for years and have not required the impetus of war to advocate such a Measure. I made up my mind as a Minister to try to remove this matter from the competitive position that had operated to the disadvantage of the people concerned, and in drafting this Bill that is the objective I have had in mind.


I regret I cannot accept this Amendment because it is so limiting. Administratively, it puts my Department in a most unfortunate position. Let me read the Amendment, if I may, and show what it says, and then I would ask hon. Members to turn to Clause 7 and see how I try to avoid the very thing that this Amendment seeks to do. It says:
Until such time as facilities are available for training all disabled persons preference in selection for such courses shall be given to those disabled as a result of a war injury, a war risk injury or detention or a war service injury.
and then it goes on to define what it means. It says the words "War injury, war risk injury, or war Service injury" shall have the same meaning as in the Pensions Appeals Tribunals Act, 1943. Immediately the man in the employment exchange is brought down to seek a definition as to whether it comes within the 1943 Pensions Appeals Tribunals Act. May I suggest that you cannot administer a labour exchange quite like that? These limiting phrases are not wanted. What is wanted is to know whether a man is an ex-Serviceman. This Amendment does not give a preference to ex-Servicemen at all; it only gives preference to a war disabled ex-Serviceman within that limitation. Let me explain the difficulty I find myself in. I took 18,000 men out of the Army and put them into the mines. They are still in the Army. Hon. Members will appreciate that they have not been released; they can be called back to the Colours to-morrow, and if a man gets injured in the mine he is still in the Services. This is the legal difficulty you are trying to place the Department in.
I am not contesting the principle at all. I am trying to do the right thing, and I think I can do it better administratively, and that is my honest conviction after much experience. Look at the difference between Clause 7 and the definition in the Act of 1943. You, Mr. Williams, will forgive me for turning to this, but it has a bearing on the matter. The Clause says:
If the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a disabled person and that his disablement is likely to continue for six months or more from the time of the entry of his name in the register
and so on. It is a different consideration that comes before the pensions tribunal. What is the pensions tribunal to do? Is the injury due to war service? That is

what I have got to consider. It may be hard. It may be the man is disabled and he may even be disqualified, yet I know, and my employment exchange man knows, he cannot go back into a full-time job until I have given him training, because he may not pass the strict medical board, yet commonsense tells me I ought to rehabilitate that man.
What do I propose to do? I propose to put the man's service in the Army first, because an ex-Serviceman to me is not a war disabled ex-Serviceman but an ex-Serviceman, and I will give him a preference wherever he is. I went very carefully into this matter when I came into office. I know political kudos can be got out of this thing one way or the other, and I beg hon. Members not to bring politics into this business at all. I want to carry out the objectives of the Bill. When I looked very carefully at this Amendment I realised that whatever the good intentions of the hon. Members who put it down, whatever they thought to achieve, they would not achieve it. They will, in fact, injure some people.
It is a miserable business for a man who knows that he ought to put a man or woman in, but has to leave them out because he is governed by some Clause put into a Bill. Administratively, this does not mean going beyond the intentions of the House. I am very happy to think that in the 3½ years I have been here Members have not had cause to challenge me for going beyond the powers of the House. In fact they have criticised me for not using them enough. I have tried, and my Department have tried, to exercise care. We administer hundreds of preferences through the employment exchanges. We have separate registers for the building trade and we have recently created an appointments department to deal with the employment of ex-officers. There is nothing in any Act of Parliament except the general powers given to the employment exchange service throughout the country and I want that service still to have the ability to apply commonsense, but beyond that I really cannot go.
I should be broken-hearted if I lost this Bill, and I ask hon. Members to give my Department a chance to administer this matter in a way that I am perfectly certain will give satisfaction. If at any time any Ministry fails to carry out its


pledge, the remedy is in the hands of the House. I would beg all hon. Members to allow my Department in dealing with this most human problem, the problem of the disabled, to retain a flexibility of administration.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I am not convinced by the Minister's speech. I am quite sure that he spoke from his heart and that his intentions are very sound, but I must traverse one thing he said early on, namely, that it did not require the impetus of war to bring this Bill, and therefore this Amendment, before the Committee. I must traverse that and say I cannot possibly agree with him. I maintain that the Bill was produced, and that this Amendment arose out of it, solely and wholly because we are at war. I am whole-heartedly in agreement with the principles behind this Bill, but what I want to do is something that this country has failed to do for so many centuries—to give a proper appreciation to the Fighting Services. I say that preference is absolutely essential and that a very great principle is involved. I repeat again that the Bill would never have come before the House if it had not been for the war. How, then, is it reasonable to deny preference to the people who are fighting this war for us? The Minister went on to say something with which I have some sympathy, because I am sure he meant absolutely what he said. He said that if it was left to him and his successors they would, by administrative methods, carry out the desires of those who are supporting this Amendment. I do suggest to the Minister that that is not the way he has conducted his affairs in a long and busy lifetime.

Mr. Gallacher: Could I ask the hon. and gallant Member a question? Is he arguing here that if it had not been for the war the Tory majority in this House would not have objected to a Bill being brought in to assist a disabled workman?

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I see how difficult it would be to penetrate the armour of the hon. Gentleman's self-assurance.

Major Manningham-Buller: I hope that the Minister did not seriously suggest that my hon. Friends and I put down these Amendments with the least desire to play party politics. That is certainly not my desire, which is to achieve what I consider to be justice to the war disabled.

May I come straight away to what the Minister has said? He has given a binding promise to achieve the object of this Amendment administratively, which promise, it has been stated, will be binding on his Department. Whatever that may mean I do not know. In my view, and I may be wrong, the only way in which this House can achieve anything binding on a Department is by putting it in an Act of Parliament. Views and Governments may change. Without wishing to indulge in any party politics I would say that if a Government formed from hon. Members opposite or from the Liberal Party—I do not know the views of the Common Wealth Party because they have not expressed them on this subject—came into power, it is obvious that this preference would cease to be given. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is playing party politics now?"]
I am afraid that I did not follow the Minister's observations about employment exchanges. It seems to me that the exchanges would be just as much bound by Regulations made by the Minister as they would be by Sections in an Act of Parliament. I want to make it clear that the Amendment was not put down with the intention of limiting the operation of the Bill, but to give a preference, and not to exclude anyone. I am sure the Minister appreciates that that is the object of the Amendment. If the words are unsatisfactory to achieve that object, that is another matter, and I am surprised that he has not said that he would reconsider the wording, if it did not meet with his approval, so that proper words to achieve what is our common object might be used.

Lady Apsley: I support the Amendment, speaking on behalf of the dependants of the war disabled, who have been very unselfish and very patient, but who are anxious as to the future. A great deal hangs on the fate of this Amendment, and we who have been closest in touch with the difficulties of the war disabled after the last war know full well the shortness of memory with which people in this country have always been afflicted since the days of Agincourt, Blenheim, Trafalgar to Passchendaele. However, we must see to it that after this war similar situations cannot arise, and it is this that we are anxious about. I feel also that the Minister is out of touch with


the country if he does not know that the whole country desires that this preference should be given to those who will have become disabled under war service conditions.
There are three things mainly responsible for winning this war for us. The first is the magnificent quality of our men who are fighting by sea, land and air. The second is the great ability shown by our women in filling the gaps, and in enabling more men to go overseas and keep away the worst effects of war from this country. The third is the steadfastness of the civilian population. Priority must be given to the first two classes. I am sure that if a census were taken in this country this view would be supported by an overwhelming majority of our people. I beg my Labour Friends to support this Amendment, as if Socialism means anything it means that the State must be an ideal employer. It is essential that we who represent the State should behave as ideal employers in regard to priority for ex-Servicemen and women who become war disabled and who suffer very greatly after having given very much for the State under the conditions of war service.

Mr. Mander: I cannot help feeling a good deal of sympathy with the spirit of this Amendment. I should have thought it was obvious to everybody, including the Minister, that some preference was essential, owing to the difference of the circumstances in which disability takes place. How can we compare the case of a man injured in a factory with that of a man who has gone through many months of fighting in the campaigns in North Africa, or night after night with Bomber Command over Germany? There is a difference which every man must appreciate. I believe that the workmen in the factories would be the first to appreciate it. I am not at all sure that it will work out that way, for if the Minister is able to provide facilities for training for all, the situation will not arise. I hope that that will be the case.
It has been suggested that the Amendment was perhaps not the best way of achieving this object, and I am rather inclined to agree. I should have thought it would be a great deal better for the Minister to be prepared on a later Clause to consider putting in some general words

embodying what he has just said, and indicating that a preference will be shown to certain classes. It would not tie him down to a close definition such as is contained in the Amendment, but would indicate a general view, held by the Minister himself, the majority of hon. Members and by the people in the country, I believe. In practice, I do not know that there will be very much difficulty, because I believe that the average employer will be only too proud to have in his employment a worker who was disabled in battle against the enemy——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I am sorry, but on this Amendment it is out of Order to discuss employment.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak): I would like to make one last appeal to the Minister in order to avoid a Division upon this issue. It really would be most unfortunate if a Division took place in which the right hon. Gentleman relied upon the support of those Members who have said they did not approve of his doing by administrative action what he has said that he is willing to do. We have no desire to divide against the Government on this issue. I can think of nothing more unfortunate than that this Bill, which has obtained the overwhelming support of public opinion, should start with a Division upon this issue.

Mr. Gallacher: Withdraw the Amendment, then.

Mr. Malson: I endorse what the Minister has said. It may well be that the Amendment is not well drafted. Will the Minister make the promise that between now and the Report stage he will consider, in consultation with Treasury draftsmen, whether it is possible to devise words which will put into the Bill what he has said it is his intention to do in the Ministry of Labour? I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but such a course would certainly avoid putting some of us in an extraordinarily difficult position in which the Minister will have promised to do something but has been unable to do it.

Mr. Bevin: My difficulty in this matter is a question of binding definition. If hon. Members are content with general words expressing the intention, then I could possibly give it between now and


the Report stage. My difference with hon. Members is that all the time I have tried to keep in mind that this is an industrial matter and not a pensions matter. If they would agree with me that I should use terms like "a preference for a person who has served" and not merely "war disabled" I shall be very happy to meet them. My difficulty has been to get down to this wording "war disabled," as it is a limiting phrase. I have been rather more generous to ex-Service men than my hon. Friends because I have been trying to make the phrase wider and I have been unable, even with the help of the Parliamentary draftsmen, to find the right phrase. I relied on the general practice of the employment exchanges, believing that I could accomplish the same object by administrative means. If the administrative action is in relation to those who have served and is not limited merely to war disabled, and if we can have a rather wider phrase to cover the action which the Government intend to take through the administrative machine, I will puzzle my brains to find it.

Major Manningham-Buller: I do not quite appreciate what the Minister means by "those who have served." Does he mean to include in it an ex-Serviceman who, after he has been discharged or demobilised, meets with an industrial accident?

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid I shall have to do that. It is very difficult, but I have to keep in mind things which I cannot mention to the House at the moment but of which they will be apprised later in connection with demobilisation and various other matters. As to the man who is put into the Class W Reserve, I have been struggling for a rather wider phrase in order that he will not feel that because he was in the Army, was out of it for six months and is now back again, he has a grievance. I am anxious to satisfy hon. Members. I happen to know that there is very keen feeling about this matter in the Services themselves, where people are very keen that I shall not have such limiting phrases which exclude all these circumstances. In that spirit I will try to find words between the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who has taken one view, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller)

who moved the Amendment. I will be very happy to talk it over with them between now and the Report Stage.

Major Manningham-Buller: In view of what the Minister has just said, and I am sure that he appreciates that my question to him was not put in any hostile spirit, in view of his assurance that there will be something in the Bill——

Hon. Members: No.

Major Manningham-Buller: I may be wrong but I understood the Minister to say that between now and the Report stage something would be put in the Bill to show that a preference should be given to Servicemen, the men who have actually served, and if I am mistaken in that perhaps the Minister would answer me. I understood him to say he would put into the Bill something to show that there was a preference for men who have served. If that was the case I would like to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir Herbert Williams: I am not going to agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment. Why should I? I do not think we know where we are. I have listened to the Minister. He has made a statement which I do not understand and which my hon. and gallant Friend clearly did not understand properly. Therefore, we ought to have something clear. There are two categories. In one case it is the rehabilitation of the man who has suffered a war injury—that is one class. In the other it is the rehabilitation of the soldier who has suffered a civilian injury. The Minister wants to put the two together. I think they are different classes. I have in mind the man who has suffered as a result of war service. I think he ought to have a preference over any class of persons, whether ex-soldiers or civilians. The Minister has made a statement which is so tied up in words that I do not know what he meant. I think he has an obligation to tell us in precise terms what is in his mind.

Mr. Gallacher: Do not bother any more with them. It is wasting time.

Mr. Bevin: I have bothered with the hon. Member a bit in my time. What I said was that between now and the Report stage I would try to find words to give effect to the intention of the Government which I gave in my pledge. [Interrup-


tion.] I am talking about finding words—I have no secret arrangement—words which would give effect to the intention which I have enunciated, which I would like to enact to cover the men who have served. In embracing the men who have served there are people who, during their service, have been released from war duties for civilian work and during that time, although they were still in the Service, they have in fact been injured. I do not feel disposed to exclude those men who have been released for war work and called back again or who have been disabled while still on the rolls of the War Office or other Services. Therefore, beyond that I cannot go at this stage. I will try to find the right words to express the intention, but I repeat I do not want limiting phrases seeking to define the categories in a way that places limitation on the administration of this matter as it is expressed in the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act.

Major Manningham-Buller: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member has already proposed that, but I am afraid it has not been accepted.

Mr. Lewis: May I respectfully point out, Mr. Williams, that whether the hon. and gallant Member proposed it or not you never put it from the Chair?

The Deputy-Chairman: There was no question of putting it from the Chair when the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) rose and refused to agree.

Mr. Molson: I understand that this was a discussion as to what was meant by the statement of my right hon. Friend to-day.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, the hon. and gallant Member definitely asked for leave to withdraw and objection was taken.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, at the end, to add:
and shall prescribe such conditions, including the right of inspection, as will ensure efficiency.

The Amendment is quite simple, and I do not propose to make any long speech to justify it. The Clause deals with vocational training and vocational training centres and within his powers the Minister seeks to guide those, other than public authorities, who undertake vocational training. I am desirous of ensuring that in any case where the Minister farms this work out to people other than public authorities there shall be conditions that shall ensure efficient vocational training, with the right of inspection of the premises. I am aware that already there are in existence reputable agencies such as the Lord Roberts Memorial Workshops or the Earl Haig Workshops but I very much fear that when, as a result of stringency, there is a difficulty in finding places there may spring up mushroom organisations, and that it would be in their interests not to speed up the vocational training of disabled persons but rather to keep them as long as the capitation grant or maintenance grant is being paid. It is for that purpose I am moving this Amendment, with a view to ensuring efficiency, including the right of inspection.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment for reasons I have given to the Committee. When analogous arrangements of this kind are made they are always the subject of written agreement, and a written agreement always provides various conditions which are appropriate to the subject-matter and also provides for the right of inspection. Therefore, to insert these words here in this particular Bill would throw doubts or suggest that powers of inspection cannot be prescribed in other cases where these words are not inserted. This really can be done and will be done without the proposed words in the Bill.

Mr. Messer: I beg to ask leave to with-draw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Payments to persons attending courses.)

Mr. Lewis: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from "held," to "up," in line 41.
My object in putting down this Amendment is merely to give the Minister an opportunity of explaining exactly the meaning of the words which I suggest should be omitted. It seems to me that the Clause as it stands might mean one of two things. It might mean that the words "may make payments" in line 40 refer only to the expenses mentioned earlier in the Clause, in which case it is a mere matter of drafting and need not detain us further but it seems to me possible that instead of meaning that it means that the words "may make payments" cover something very much wider than the expenses referred to in the earlier part of the Clause. I cannot make up my mind what is meant, and I want the Minister to say what the words do mean, because if they mean that the Minister has power to make some minor amendments, for example, of wages, of salaries, of these men during this period, I think the matter should be made quite plain to the Committee so that they can consider its desirability or not.

Mr. Tomlinson: Our purpose is that maintenance allowances may be paid to the individual while in training. If the Amendment were carried the only people who could undertake training would be those who could afford to take it because they had the means. This Clause enables the practice which is being followed at present to be continued, that is that when people go for training they shall receive maintenance allowances during the period they are in training.

Mr. Lewis: In these circumstances I would beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Register of disabled persons.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out "disabled persons," and to insert:
persons handicapped by war injury or disease.
On the Order Paper will be found a large number of Amendments that are consequential to this. I would explain

to the Committee that all the Amendments in my name except that dealing with Clause 20, page 16, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (3), which is on an entirely different point, are consequential and hinge on this Amendment. The object of this Amendment is to confine the register to the disabled and the obligation to provide employment for those who were injured either in the last war or in this war, and the reason why that limitation is being sought is because of the uncertainty as to the number of persons who will be qualified under this Bill and the number of jobs available for them. The Parliamentary Secretary, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, was quite clear that he could not give any approximate estimate of the number of persons qualified, and his own Committee's report went into the matter in even greater detail. What we do know, and what we can hazard, are the numbers of those disabled in the last war and those who are likely to be disabled in the present. The number disabled in the last war was 400,000, and we can hazard the number for this war in the region of 600,000, which is not unreasonable if this war is going to be longer than the last, and fought on a wider front. We thus have 1,000,000 men to provide employment for under this Bill, and without wishing to injure the claim of any of the other classes—the congenital, the road accident, or the industrial—I think that is a job that this House should do now. It should see that every man who has been disabled in the war should get a job and after that, if there are jobs over, then it will be for the Minister of Labour, and whatever Government is then in power, to bring in a Bill asking for wider powers.
There is considerable danger, which the Tomlinson Committee admitted, in this question of the burden upon industry. The Minister must fix a reasonable quota, otherwise we are going to damage the object which we all have at heart. We must have a quota fixed for an industry which will be reasonable so that it may employ a proper number of disabled persons, otherwise you may find works closing down. I am going to suggest that to per cent. is a reasonable quota. If we take the figure of employment just before the last war and deduct those who are already accepted by the Minister under this Bill, it would appear that the


1,000,000 disabled will be about 10 per cent. of the insured population that will be qualified. I hope, when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply, he will give us some idea of what budget he is working on. What worries me in this Bill is that we are all really agreed in our sympathy, not only with the war disabled but with all disabled, but everyone in the House is equally in favour of securing a job for the man disabled as a result of the war, and, without entering into the differences of the last Amendment, they want to see that done first. The man, whether he is blown up in the factory or has lost his leg on the Sangro, or whether he got his disability protecting convoys to Russia, must be assured of a job, and I do not feel confident that the Bill as at present drawn will give that assurance.
There are large numbers of congenital and road accident cases—those who practise in the courts know how very large are the numbers of people injured in road accidents—but I think it unwise to-day, when the number of war disabled is increasing and will continue to increase, to give the benefit of guarantee of employment to road accident cases. At this time we should be very careful not to include in this Bill such cases as that of a man who is injured by his own fault. Not that we grudge that man getting employment, but we have a greater obligation to those who have been disabled in the war. The Committee will appreciate that if there are jobs for all then this part of the Bill is completely waste paper. The only reason for this register and these privileges is because the Government assume that there will not be full employment. Let the Parliamentary Secretary address himself to this choice: Are you going to deny a man who has fought for his country—whether in a munitions factory or in the Services—a job after the war in order to provide employment for somebody congenitally disabled or injured through his own fault in a road accident, or, as the Parliamentary Secretary and I foresaw on Second Reading, for a man who has been a burglar? I beg pardon, I forget whether it was a burglar. Let me come back to that point as a matter of historic interest. I had thought out the illustration of the cat burglar and the skylight before the Parliamentary Secretary ever gave me the opportunity of putting as the basis of

his Bill the fact that he intended to give employment to the burglar who had been disabled. That is the historical fact, and the illustration is very germane.

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not like to interrupt, but there may be a misunderstanding if I do not. The man we had in mind was not a subject for employment; it was a question of rehabilitation, and he is therefore excluded from this part of the Bill with which my hon. Friend is dealing.

Mr. Turton: I am not dealing with the Parliamentary Secretary's burglar, but with my cat burglar who falls through the roof and is injured and is trying to get a job. Is the Committee going to say that that man should be given a job in preference to a man who is fighting in Italy and comes back not disabled? If we have full employment for all, then there is no point in this Bill. If there is going to be a shortage of employment, let us get our preferences quite clear and see that we give employment to the war disabled, and then let us see that those men who have fought and returned not disabled get employment before those who are the congenital, road accident or civilian casualties.
Let me say one more word on the industrial question, because that has made a difference of opinion appear between Members in different parts of the House. I personally believe that if an employee is injured in his industry then his employer has a responsibility towards that injured workman to employ him when he is rehabilitated. I fear that if this Bill extends to the casualties in industry it will be a retrograde Measure. Employers will no longer think that they have that responsibility and they will be able to say to their injured workman: "We cannot give you employment; you are given this choice under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill." That would be a very unfortunate result of what I know are the good intentions of the Parliamentary Secretary. Surely it is fair for those industries with high rates of casualties to make their own provision for employment rather than put that responsibility on other industries, as this Bill will do, and at the same time deprive those men who have been disabled in the Services from the chance of employment. It is because I feel a case has not been made out that there will be enough jobs for the disabled to go round,


so that those who are the war disabled either in the Services or the factories can get employment, that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply will give us an estimate of numbers and quotas so that we can be satisfied that his figures are correct.

Mr. Naylor: On a point of Order. I want to draw your attention to the fact that this Amendment seeks to destroy what we have already passed in Clause 1. This is intended to be a Bill for enabling all disabled persons to find employment; that is clearly implied in the Preamble and in Clause 1 itself. If we say in Clause 1 that a disabled person is one disabled in war service or otherwise, how can we discuss an Amendment which seeks to destroy what we have already passed in that Clause? I think we should be well advised to consider that point as I am quite sure in my own mind that whatever the letter of the Amendment may be, in principle and in fact it comes back to Clause 1.

Mr. Turton: Would it not put the matter entirely in Order if I pointed out that Clause 1 gives a definition of disabled persons who are dealt with, and that this Amendment seeks to set up a register of persons, who are going to be defined in Sub-section (2)? This, in my submission, is a perfectly reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger: If this Amendment is carried, are we to understand that the register will then be limited to only one class of disabled persons?

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward): It seems to me that as, in spite of Clause 1, disabled persons have been dealt with in subsequent Clauses, that renders this Amendment completely in Order. It does not necessarily follow that the fact that they are defined in this Amendment will affect other Clauses in any definite way.

Mr. Naylor: I submit that the Amendment in fact conflicts with Clause 1. I waited before making my further point for the explanation of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. This Bill depends on the compilation of a register. If this Bill is intended to take into account all disabled persons, and the Amendment seeks to limit the register to only a proportion of the disabled persons, it is quite obvious that there will be a conflict between Clause 1 and this Amednment.

The Temporary Chairman: I have already ruled that there is no such conflict.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Further, on the point of Order, although the Amendment is in Order, I take it that the hon. Member does not wish to keep out all people who are disabled other than by war injury.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: This Amendment very clearly reveals the state of mind in which Members opposite are facing this whole subject. The hon. Gentleman is saying, in effect, that thousands of ex-Servicemen of the last war who have been injured in industry since that war, and thousands of men who are now serving and who will be injured after this war, are to be excluded. I am very sorry that I have not at my disposal here the statistical abstract dealing with injuries and deaths in workshops and mines, but about 1936 I dealt with the 15 years after the last war. I remember quite clearly that in my own industry no fewer than 30,000 had been seriously disabled during that 15 years: taking the whole of industry, about 1,000,000 had been injured, and tens of thousands seriously disabled, It goes without saying that large numbers of them were men who had served in the last war, and the same will apply in the case of the men who are serving in this war. I do not think I need ask the Government to refuse this Amendment: they cannot very well accept it, either in principle or in appearance. It is very clear that not only are hon. Members opposite against giving assistance in a Bill of this description to people who have already been disabled in industry, but they are against giving consideration to men who are now serving.

Mr. Bellenger: I have no objection to a separate registration of different classes of disabled people: all I would suggest is that, whether they are included in this manner in the Bill or not, the Ministry of Labour, in their own interests—because they have to operate this Bill when it becomes an Act—should know the size of the problem. If the House of Commons is going to insist that, in those circumstances which many people believe and some fear may happen, only a limited


number of jobs will be available and preference shall be given to ex-Servicemen as a consequence, the Ministry of Labour obviously must know through their registers with how many such men they have to deal. I suggest that this Amendment will have a penalising effect on certain classes of the men whom the hon. Member wants to benefit. Who are the war-disabled? They are defined as those who can pass through the fine-mesh sieve of the Ministry of Pensions and get a pension. If the present appeals are any indication the odds are four to one against a man proving his case for a pension. A far larger number will be excluded from this register because they are not pensioners of the Ministry of Pensions. The register, whatever we may think about the entitlement to preferential employment, ought to be left to administrative action in the Ministry of Labour. As long as they give a guarantee that they will classify the different persons that we have in mind, effectively, this Amendment, I think, is totally unnecessary.

Mr. Messer: I see an additional danger in this Amendment. As I understand, if the Amendment were passed the register would include only those who are handicapped by war injury. Employers are to be compelled later to take a quota of those who are so registered. Already there is in industry a large number of disabled people. There are many trades where these people can fit in. There are many generous employers who are prepared to recognise the disability of certain people. The employer will be expected to take a quota of registered disabled persons. Obviously he could not do that in addition to keeping the disabled persons who are already there, and they would have to be discharged. I cannot see how the Government could possibly accept this Amendment.

Mr. Tomlinson: The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), by suggesting that the whole of the Amendments should stand or fall together, shows that he realises that the different parts are dependent one upon the other. If the Government were to accept this Amendment the Bill would become unworkable. The Amendment would destroy the Bill. The Bill could no longer be regarded as a Measure of social service, but would be

purely and simply a Measure for dealing with the war-injured and the war-diseased. For that reason the Amendment could not possibly be accepted. Again I want to emphasise that I am not going to enter into a competition in pessimism. The arguments which were put forward earlier to-day depended on what opportunities there would be after the war, but this Amendment assumes that there will not be an opportunity to do anything for anybody except those who are injured by the war. Therefore I could not agree with the first condition upon which the Amendment is moved.
It was suggested that because the size of the problem cannot be defined it follows that you are not entitled to assume that you will be able to deal with it. The hon. Member, in arguing that the Amendment was in Order, gave part of the answer to that particular problem. The disabled, as he pointed out, are to be divided into two classes, one of which he is seeking to exclude. These are, the disabled, and those who are handicapped by disablement. It is only those who are handicapped in obtaining and retaining employment who find a place on the register, so that whatever the number of disabled, it does not follow that that will have any particular relationship to the number who will find their way on to the register and therefore become part of the scheme.
An hon. Member suggested that there are a great many disabled employed now. There are a great many disabled people in employment now who will not find a place on the register, because they will have done what the Bill is primarily intended to do, and that is, to achieve rehabilitation to such an extent that they are brought back into industry without needing the medium of the register. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, for the reason that it could not possibly be accepted. Even if we accepted it and tried to work it, I do not think that it would help the people whom he is seeking to assist because of its exclusiveness. I do not think that any section of the community would seek to deny benefit to one man until they were in a position to grant the same benefit to all. Therefore, I hope that he will withdraw the Amendment in order that we may attempt to do that which he wishes to be done.

Mr. Turton: Before I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I would ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to do what I requested—give us some indication of his budget and the size of the problem that he estimates owing to these Amendments. Without an estimate one cannot really tackle the Bill.

Mr. Tomlinson: The same question was put on two or three occasions during the Second Reading, and I want to say now what I said then. It is impossible either to estimate or to guess—and a guess is no use—as we are not in a position to determine what will be the situation that we may be called upon to meet. We were not in a position to determine whether we could meet the situation when we were called upon to fight, and had to decide how many people had to be called up. No one had any conception of the number that would be involved. I have no conception of the numbers involved here, but I have some conception of its relationship to the general working population, and I believe we can meet the requirements of the disabled in conjunction with the Ministry of Pensions.

Mr. Turton: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir I. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert:
provided that in the Register war-disabled persons shall be separately recorded.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order. Does not this Amendment rather involve the same sort of problem that we have just been debating?

The Temporary Chairman: No, I do not agree there at all; it raises a totally different question.

Sir I. Fraser: The Minister has said that between now and the Report stage he will find some words to insert in the Bill which will go some way, perhaps even go the whole way, towards meeting the wishes of many of us, that those who have served or who are serving, together with some other classes of ins and outs of his own, shall be given a preference within the quotas of the Measure. It will be within the recollection of fhe Committee that he promised to do something very definitely between now and the Report stage. It follows from this that he in-

tends, either by way of operating these words, which can be in the Statute, or by administration, or by both, to give some kind of preference to ex-Servicemen, with some others. It must be clear to the Committee, and I hope it is to the Front Bench, that they cannot do that unless they record who these ex-Servicemen and others are. Therefore, they must either have a second register or must mark the register they keep. The Amendment is to authorise them to make regulations to mark the register so that ex-Servicemen and the others to whom it is proposed to give a prior place shall be clearly recognisable.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: There is a point in connection with the Amendment that I would like to stress as it represents the view held by the British Legion in Scotland. If the Government accept the Amendment, as I hope they will, we would not like two registers but one general register in which cases might be marked by coloured cards according to the different categories of disabled or injured persons in the register. If there were two registers there might be possible confusion and when an employer asked for particulars of an employee, say, a cabinet maker or a painter, possibly the clerk in the Exchange might only produce one register, which might not be the ex-Serviceman's register. Therefore, it is best to have all the names in one volume and the different types of cases should be distinguished by coloured cards. That is the view held by the British Legion in Scotland.

Mr. Tomlinson: I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, because we have already the power it is suggested should be given. It is the intention not to have two registers but to be able to know exactly the reasons for the disability, how it has arisen and the information regarding each individual who comes under the register. Therefore, in a comprehensive register of that kind there is no necessity to differentiate between the two except to know that they are all there. We certainly have the power already and it therefore does not need to be given to us.

Mr. Bellenger: Whether my hon. Friend is going to have a register containing not only two categories but many more, I take it that it will include the hon. Gentleman's cat burglars.

Mr. Tomlinson: It will be, as it must be, one register, and a register for whatever purpose, and the differentiation can be made because of the entries.

Mr. Hogg: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he had the power to acquire the information which is required by this Amendment. Do I understand him to say that from the first the information which he has the power to collect and to record will in fact be collected and recorded?

Sir I. Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman add just a little word further and then I shall be anxious to oblige him by withdrawing the Amendment? Can he give an assurance that in the Regulations there will be a power to see that ex-Servicemen——

Mr. Bevin: In the Regulations?

Sir I. Fraser: You are going to set up a register. That is what this Clause gives you power to do. Can you give an assurance that under these Regulations you will take power to mark the ex-Servicemen?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

Sir Joseph Nall: We ought to have it clear what is in the mind of the Minister of Labour. We know perfectly well already that, in the last war—the Minister of Pensions is here and will correct me if I am wrong—something like one out of every 100 disabled or fewer were those who required particular treatment, training and rehabilitation. This Bill as it stands will deal with every injured, person, but the ones we are most concerned about are those who need special training to get them into a condition where they can do something for themselves towards getting a job. The vast majority of war disabled men get occupation without special training and without special guidance. What we are most concerned about now is the man who has lost limbs and suffered injury of such severity that he is at a special disadvantage in the labour market. The proportion of men to which that applies is very small in the whole field of disabled persons and would be lost in one comprehensive list. I do not know what the precise figure is; I suggest it is one in 100.

Mr. Bartle Bull: Forgive me, but if we have any more of this we shall not be able to find any in the list.

Sir J. Nall: This Bill is mainly concerned with men who cannot find a job themselves because of war disability, but as it stands it is dealing with thousands of people who can fend for themselves and there must be a distinction between the two categories. I fully accept the Minister's assurance of his good intention and good faith. What we want to make sure of is that the Department will be able to administer these things and that these men, for whom this Measure is primarily intended, will not be submerged in the great whole of all injured persons. I am very doubtful whether the Tomlinson Committee knows just what it is dealing with. We have only to look at their Report, which states that they never took evidence or made any inquiries. The Tomlinson Report is only the opinion of the people of which the Committee was composed. We must know, before this Bill is passed, that there is something more behind it than just the expression of opinion contained in the Tomlinson Report. What is the Minister going to do before this Bill leaves the House to make sure that there is a perfectly clear record of men who suffer war injuries in the Fighting Services and who are thereby unable to fend for themselves, as distinct from others whose injuries have not prevented them finding jobs and looking after themselves?

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid my hon. Friend has not read Clause 1.

Sir J. Nall: I have.

Mr. Bevin: If he had I do not think we would have listened to such a speech. The register is quite clear. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that in compiling the register we will take all the administrative steps necessary to see that the war disabled are put in proper categories and are given information by those who administer the employment exchanges. I am a little afraid of putting in the Bill this question of administration, but I can give him an absolute assurance that it will be a general register, with special marked cards—and I will do it by instruction or Regulation, whichever is necessary—so as to see that the disabled are clearly distinguishable from one another.

Captain Duncan: I should like enlightenment from the Minister. Under


the Clause the Minister will establish a register of disabled persons. Clause 7 Sub-section (2) says that persons desiring to go on the register should make application. Thus the whole of the basis of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) goes by the board.

Sir J. Nall: Not at all. There are cases of persons who do enjoy disability pensions for fighting in the last war.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger: I wish to ask some further questions about this register. We have been talking a lot about the spirit of the Bill, and I hope the Minister can give some information of how it will be operated. For example, will the register be a central register, like the central register we have set up to deal with the higher range of unemployed, or will it be a register centrally compiled and then transferred in pieces to the locality where the applicants for jobs will naturally be interviewed, have their particulars taken and dealt with? Obviously, the register, if it is going to be effective, must be an area or locality register, because men on this register will mainly expect jobs in their own immediate neighbourhood and there may not always be jobs for them. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a little more information of how it is to be worked. It is often found that when Bills are before this House a scheme seems excellent on paper but that when it comes to be operated we find many defects and that all the well laid plans are destroyed. We are all concerned, on all sides of the House, that whether you give preference or you do not, the people entitled to come on to the register shall be dealt with in the most effective manner in order that they shall get jobs.

Mr. Bevin: The intention is that the local registers shall be kept at the local exchange. As my hon. Friends know, the Ministry of Labour works in regions and it is our intention that knowledge of that register shall be known at the regional offices. It is not our intention to have a large central register which, in my opinion, would not make administration very effective. My experience with the Central Register, which I took over, was that it was almost unworkable and I broke

it up into appointment offices in about 30 centres in the country. It is on that principle that we wish to work.

Sir J. Nall: That emphasises the point I was raising just now; what about the man who loses a limb and who cannot look after himself? It is no good leaving him to the mercy of the local district register.

Mr. Bevin: I shall centralise it in the regions. I do not think it is any use having a huge register in London on which everybody is lost. There are 11 regions, and in those I ought to be able to cover all the vacancies and opportunities that will exist in the areas. I do not propose to limit it to the local offices because that would handicap the opportunity for the disabled by making a narrow limit. I think the region is wide enough to grapple with this problem.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Entry of names of disabled persons in the register.)

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out from "prescribing," to the first "the", in line 21, and to insert "the manner in which."
This Amendment, if approved, would make the Clause read:
The Minister may make regulations describing the manner in which entry on the register of the names of any persons is to be effected.
It also omits certain other words which are at present there. Its object is clear to the Minister because he could scarcely have expected to get away with the wording of the Clause as it is at present without hon. Members, on this side particularly, taking exception to the present drafting. Unless I misinterpret the Clause we are, in fact, giving the Minister power to alter the Bill and put in conditions or regulations with regard to who shall not be on the register and to qualify and alter, if necessary, the fundamental conditions for qualification under Clause 1. We are handing over to the Minister complete power to do what he likes. There is a tendency in these days for Departments to insert Clauses of this character about which some of us are highly suspicious, and the Amendment is to give the Minister a chance of explaining why it is necessary for us to agree to such fundamental and


far-reaching powers as are included in the present words.

Mr. Messer: I do not know whether I correctly understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman but as I read the Clause the Minister has power to disqualify, a power which he would no longer possess if the Amendment were carried. It will place the Minister in great difficulty if circumstances arise in regard to disabled persons on the register and he is not allowed to say that conditions of continued registration no longer apply and should be deleted.

Major Manningham-Buller: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the Clause again? It deals with admission to the register.

Mr. Messer: But there is a condition of disqualification.

The Attorney-General: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has put down this. Amendment because it gives me an opportunity on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of explaining—I hope to the satisfaction of the Committee—the necessity for a power of this kind. Those, of course, who get on the register obtain an advantage and it is necessary that they should, as it were, play the game with the scheme. Take, for instance, this case: it must be a condition—although it may not be proper to define it in exact terms in the Bill—of getting on the register that the man should be willing to attend either a vocational or rehabilitation course which will fit him, or we hope will fit him, to be of use in any employment to which he might go. There are no conditions with regard to Clauses 2 and 3. It is enough to be considered for vocational or rehabilitation course that you are disabled but when it comes to the question of getting on to the employment register there must be conditions which can be imposed on the individual. I have given one instance which I think everybody will accept. There must be power to say to the person, "You need vocational training if you are to get an advantage and employers are to consider you in the pool from which they have to employ a certain percentage. Therefore, you must undergo a course of vocational or rehabilitation training."

Sir J. Nall: May I ask a question on that point? If a man will not undergo training and, therefore, remains in a state

in which he cannot be employed, is it not necessary to keep his name on the register so that that information can be checked against him on future occasions?

The Attorney-General: No, our view is that he should not be on the register. The register is of people who come under this scheme and of whom a quota has to be taken. If the man does not choose to take advantage of the arrangements for training him he must take his own chance without the advantages which the Bill is intended to confer on people who are registered. I will give another example: A man may be unreasonable and refuse to have medical treatment which is designed to enable him to be as useful as may be to the employer who will be put under an obligation to employ a proportion of people on the register. I will give another example, one which my right hon. Friend may have to consider as he goes along. It is the question whether any obligation should be imposed on people as to their intention to reside in this country. It would not be put as a formal obligation. Perhaps it might be put the other way round. There are a lot of people who have come to this country from other countries for some reason or other and they may be intending to go back as soon as they get the chance. No doubt, broadly speaking, we desire to help them, but there must be a question whether they should go on the register unless the Ministry is satisfied that they intend to remain in employment here if they get the chance. That is a matter about which my right hon. Friend would consider whether he ought to make a reservation.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman referring to enemy aliens, perhaps enlisted in the Pioneer Corps, who have suffered disablement and may be entitled to a pension?

The Attorney-General: I am not referring to any one in particular but generally to people who are in the country and may be intending to leave it at the first opportunity.

Mr. Bellenger: Does it include that class?

The Attorney-General: I am observing generally that this matter of people who are in this country, or may be when the scheme starts working, but may be going to leave it as soon as may be is one of


the matters on which it may be found proper for the Minister to make a Regulation saying that he is satisfied that there is an intention to reside for a certain period before putting the man on the register. There are other cases which will occur to one. There are people perhaps with private resources who come within the definition and have no intention of being employed. I hope I have satisfied everyone that, if the register is to be a real, live representation of what is intended, there should be a possibility of imposing conditions, one or two of which I have enumerated, and people may say, could you not put it in the Bill? Obviously you could not. I think it is a matter which it is absolutely necessary to leave to the more flexible procedure of Regulations, which will be laid before Parliament and in which, no doubt, the British Legion and many other bodies will take a great interest and if there is anything objectionable in them it can be raised.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says this is the only practical way to do it. Will he explain the matter further? It is an important point.

The Attorney-General: I have instanced four or five examples of what I suggest are obviously proper qualifications or conditions for people to get on the register. This is a somewhat new scheme and there is a good deal of experience to be gained. If you put it in the Bill you will be really hampering the scheme if you have to come back and get an Amending Bill before you can adapt it and get it to work.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is not that the usual proceeding? We used to be a democracy once.

The Attorney-General: I do not know where the hon. Member puts the apex of perfection from which we have descended. If he takes the period when the policy of laissez faire, advocated at one time by the party sitting behind him, was at its height, there was far less necessity for what is called delegated legislation than when the House decided that it wanted to put in statutory form an increasing number of what are really big administrative schemes. If you take any period of time from which this House began to pass these big administrative statutory schemes you will find a very substantial body of

Regulations and Orders because, if the House is to function and to deal with what people desire it to deal with, you cannot cross every t and dot every i of administrative schemes if they are to work properly because you would have the position of having to come back to the House whenever anything fresh came up. [Interruption.] I do not expect to convince the hon. Member. I doubt whether the angel Gabriel would convince him. But we feel that, if the scheme is to work properly and to adapt itself to the new experience that is bound to be gained as it is put in operation, it is necessary to have the power to make Regulations dealing with these conditions. They will be laid before Parliament and, if there is anything objectionable in them, we can have Prayers, and we think that is the right method to get the scheme adapted to the experience which will be gathered as we go along.

Earl Winterton: I have not taken any part in the discussion on this Bill up to now but I have listened very carefully to the points that have arisen on other Amendments. In some measure the right hon. and learned Gentleman has met the objections which rest in some of our minds by saying that the Regulations will have to come before Parliament, but to some extent that is only a tenuous safeguard because there are so many matters on which Parliament can, if it so desires, support a Prayer that it is difficult, unless there is a large group of people watching them, which I believe is the case at present, to prevent things getting through which Parliament should discuss. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered this point. In Sub-section (2) (a) the very widest powers are given to the Minister. The words are:
If the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a disabled person and that his disablement is likely to continue for six months or more from the time of the entry of his name in the register, that any prescribed condition as to the entry of names in the register applicable to him is satisfied and that he is not subject to any prescribed disqualification in that behalf, his name shall be entered in the register.
How, then, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman argue that it may be desirable for a Minister in the future to make Regulations when he has power to lay down the prescribed conditions in advance?

The Attorney-General: The prescribed conditions referred to can only be applied under Regulations, the power to make which this Amendment would remove from the Minister.

Earl Winterton: If that is so, that answers my point. The Amendment as it stands would hardly deal with the difficulty that the mover suggested because really the whole of the words ought to be taken out.
May I turn to a point on which I would earnestly ask for the support of the Committee? I was very much concerned to hear what the Attorney-General had to say about the sort of conditions which, if he is given the power we are discussing, the Minister might prescribe. The purport of his remarks was that the Minister would have to be satisfied that the applicant was intending to reside in this country.

The Attorney-General: I said that it was a matter which the Minister might have to consider. I did not say categorically that he would.

Earl Winterton: It creates a dangerous situation. An hon. Friend behind me mentioned alien members of the Pioneer Corps, but I would put what I think is the stronger case of a man who intends at some time or other to return to the Dominions. What about a Dominion soldier, an Australian or Canadian, who happens to find himself in this country? He is a British subject and there is nothing to prevent him, if he is disabled and comes within the category of the Bill, taking advantage of it. Is it in the Minister's mind to say to that man, "Unless you intend to reside in this country permanently or for two or three years you will not get the advantage of the register"? It is an important point. I suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend was rather satirical at the expense of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), but it does not seem to me to be a matter of satire or for jest. It seems to me to be rather a serious thing that on a case of this kind there should be a certain amount of doubt in the Minister's mind as to the kind of regulation which is to be prescribed. I should like to have an assurance that there is no question about any Dominion soldier, whether he is going to reside permanently in this country or not, having the right to take advantage of this Bill.
The Minister may reply that my right hon. and learned Friend gave this as an illustration and that it does not mean that the Government will do anything of the kind which I fear. It does, however, illustrate the danger of the tendency, which is growing so fast in this House, to leave the Minister to make regulations. I should like to be assured that the Government do not contemplate that any person born in the Dominions who is a British subject and who is resident in this country at the time the Act comes into operation will not be put on the register because he is not a permanent resident.

Sir J. Nall: This Sub-section and the Amendment we are discussing raise much wider issues than that discussed by the noble Lord. We must remember that this is a post-war measure and permanent legislation. It is not emergency legislation and, therefore, it ought not to contain that element of government by regulation and of legislation by orders and rules which has been such a pernicious feature of the war-time method of carrying on business, but which was unavoidable in the emergency of the times. When we come to permanent Statutes, which will remain on the book for many years and be operated for 50 years in some cases, we ought to get away from the war-time practice of rules and regulations. This Sub-section says that the Minister may make regulations prescribing matters which are to constitute conditions on which a man may be on the register at all. In spite of Clause 1 and of this Debate, the Minister can make a regulation quite contrary to anything we have been saying here to-day. He can under these words make an entirely new rule or code or he can invent in a negative sense disqualifications which would debar a person from being on the register. He can make conditions under which a man could go on the register or disqualifications which would ensure a man being crossed off. It is a very wide scope and it leaves to the Minister and his successors power to amend the entire character of this Bill by rules and regulations. So far as my right hon. and learned Friend made out a case, as he did for regulations of sorts, it would be fully met by this and the consequential Amendment. If the Subsection were revised by these Amendments it would read:
The Minister may make regulations prescribing the manner in which the entry in the


register of the names of any persons is to be effected.
That is what the Attorney-General made a case for just now. The Department will be able to do what the Government want within the framework of the words proposed in these Amendments. What I and my hon. Friends object to is that under the Clause as it stands the Department will be able in years to come to say, as an hon. Friend opposite suggested, that there is such a large increase in the number of disabled persons owing to accidents on the road that they must be given preference over people in employment. That could be done under the Clause and it would be quite contrary to all that has been said to-day. We do not want to leave these matters in the hands of the Department to do as it likes with them. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretaries have been saying what they want to do. Do not let us put something into the Bill which will enable the Department under the guise of regulations to knock the bottom out of the whole thing in a few years' time.

Captain Duncan: There are Amendments on page 23 in the names of the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) and myself which I think very largely cover many of the points raised. I hope that I shall get the support of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) when we reach them. I would be content with the Government's attitude to the Amendment we are discussing if I could receive an assurance that favourable consideration will be given to my Amendments. I agree that we are feeling our way in this Bill, that we are not sure of the numbers to be catered for, or of the complications that might arise with regard to foreigners and Dominion citizens, or of the whole host of problems which will arise after the war. We must try to lay down in this Bill the general line of policy and I feel that we ought to keep the control of Parliament far more than is laid down in the Bill. If I could receive an assurance that instead of having orders and regulations laid on the Table we could have an affirmative Resolution for each of the regulations, it would to a large extent meet the objections that have been voiced in discussion on the present Amendment.

Mr. John Wilmot: I think it would be convenient to the Committee

if the Minister or the Attorney-General at this stage could give an assurance that no regulation will be made under this Clause which would go outside Clause I and the general intention of the Bill.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend asks me on behalf of my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that he will not use the regulation-making power under Clause 7—assuming it could be so used, which I doubt—to torpedo or evade or obstruct the plain purpose of the Bill. I am sure I can give that assurance in the most unqualified terms on behalf of my right hon. Friend, who is sitting behind me and hears what I say. I agree that the words look a little wide, but under this scheme you must have disqualifications and it is impossible to define them all with exactitude or precision.

Captain Duncan: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to indicate the view he is likely to take of the later Amendment to which I have referred?

Major Thorneycroft: I am bound to say that I do not follow the last explanation of the Attorney-General. It is surely perfectly plain from the very clear explanation he gave earlier that the Minister can lay down conditions with regard to a wide range of subjects, including compulsory attendance at vocational training courses, and possibly compulsory direction to labour in any part of the country. He can therefore create a class of labour wholly unknown and so far not tolerated by the trade unions. That is a thing which goes far beyond anything in Clause 1. I am not going to argue the merits of whether it is wise or unwise to introduce Regulations of that kind, but I think the whole Committee will agree that when we are giving powers of that kind we ought not to let them pass through the House without an affirmative Resolution. Therefore, I would join other hon. Members in urging that we should have an undertaking that that sort of Regulation cannot be introduced without giving the House very full opportunity of considering the Regulation.

Mr. A. Bevan: There are two points arising out of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is no use to the House to be given an assurance from the Government that they will not use certain powers in a certain way. The


question we have to ask is what kind of powers they are asking for. A Minister cannot commit any succeeding Minister and the same Minister may act differently at different times. It is no assurance to say that the Minister does not propose to use certain powers in a certain fashion. We have to ask ourselves what these powers are. It is perfectly clear we cannot have a Clause which gives a Minister power to make regulations which violate Clause 1 of the Bill, because he can only issue Regulations in pursuance of Clause 1. But Clause 1 of the Bill is very wide and this Clause can very considerably modify the position of individuals even within the terms of Clause 1. It is very important that men returning from the Services and everyone to whom the Bill refers should know what are their rights. It is very important that when the original and preliminary explanation is given they shall know the whole of the relationship between them and the Government.
If at some subsequent stage regulations are issued, about which they know nothing, which will considerably modify that relationship and their rights and obligations, you will get a terrific amount of bad feeling and a very large number of people will never get their rights because they will not know what those rights are. We do not want would-be beneficiaries to have to go to lawyers to find out what is the law. I sincerely suggest that if the Minister, instead of insisting on these words, would introduce at a subsequent stage an Amendment indicating the categories about which he proposes to make Regulations, indicating the kind of disqualification and the kind of conditions he has in mind, that would enable people in the first instance to understand their position and make unnecessary the issue of a series of regulations which would have the effect of making people unaware of their rights. Although it is perfectly true that the major apprehensions of the mover of the Amendment may be erroneous, because the matter is governed by Clause 1, nevertheless very wide powers are being given and I think it would be far better to put these things in the Bill rather than in regulations afterwards.

Major Manningham-Buller: To my surprise I find myself in almost complete

agreement with what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has just said. I only differ on one point. As I read the Bill it is within the power of the Minister, as the Bill now stands, to limit the operation of Clause 1, and indeed it is the intention that the Minister shall make Regulations which may cut down the qualifications of disabled persons because he has to specify what are the conditions for entry and what conditions shall disqualify. The Attorney-General has given reasons for the Minister having some power to make Regulations. I do not suppose the Committee would object to the Minister having power to make Regulations on certain specific subjects, but we are being asked to give the Minister a complete blank cheque, which I suggest will really be a blank cheque to bureaucracy. It may be necessary to have power to make some Regulations, but I submit that we should not give such a general charter to make a mass of Regulations which will have permanent effect.

Mr. Silverman: I am bound to say I have been surprised to hear some of the arguments advanced in support of this Amendment. One might think, listening to some of the speeches, that if the Amendment were adopted the Minister would not make any Regulations. I do not read the Amendment in that way. If we pass the Amendment the Minister would still have power to make Regulations.
Therefore, I do not understand why some hon. Members are so angry with the Government on this Amendment. If they were making a case for putting into the Bill every qualification or disqualification and every condition which could at any time apply to deprive the disabled of rights they should have, then I could understand the argument, but that argument has not been advanced. Hon. Members are not saying, "Let us have everything in the Bill"; they say "Let us have regulations, but a different kind of Regulations." It seems to me, with great respect to most of those who have taken part in the discussion, that a good deal of the argument has been thoroughly insincere and intended to be a shot in the general skirmish between those who believe that in reconstruction the Government must have certain powers to govern by delegated legislation and Regulation and those who would like to prevent that.
Looking at the particular matters that are referred to, I dissent entirely from the view of those who say that under Clause 7 the Government would have power to take away from persons the rights conferred by Clause I. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has rightly said that Clause 1 is very wide. It defines "disabled person" in a very liberal way. I do not think that under Clause 7 the Government could make a Regulation which took away from persons on whom a right is conferred by Clause 1 any of that right.

Sir D. Thomson: I have read Clause 1 a number of times. The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about rights conferred by it, but the Clause is merely a definition and there are no rights conferred.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend and I do not think that anything I have said is in conflict with what he has said. Of course Clause 1 is a definition Clause. Clause 7 is in a sense a definition Clause too, and Regulations under Clause 7 will be, in a sense, definition Regulations. I am saying—and this is precisely my point and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for enabling me to make it more clearly—that if any Regulations defined disability in a narrower way than it is defined under Clause 1, such a Regulation would be ultra vires and inoperative.

Sir D. Thomson: There is no question of defining disability under Clause 7. It is a matter of who shall go on the register.

Mr. Silverman: Conditions about getting on the register must be conditions under the Bill and conditions can only define the persons who are entitled to get on the register. They must be under the general authority of, and not in conflict with, the definitions in Clause 1 of the Bill. Otherwise, they would be ultra vires. Surely that must be right. If the Bill defines disability in Clause 1, no Regulation under Clause 7 which had the effect of cutting down the definition under Clause 1 could be legally effective. [Interruption.] The question of what use there is in the Clause may be a different matter. It is a different argument which is not now before the Committee. We are considering whether any dangers exist under the Clause as it stands. Most of the dangers that have been foreshadowed by

those who supported the Amendment are based on the misconception that a Regulation under Clause 7 could cut down on persons entitled under Clause 1. I contend that any such Regulation would be ultra vires.

Major Thorneycroft: It is obvious that persons coming under Clause I have to be disabled persons. Having once accepted that they are disabled persons, we are now considering a Clause which entitles the Minister to say not only that they may not be disabled but that they are people who have undertaken to attend a vocational training course, and if necessary, to go anywhere in the country where they are directed to work, under any conditions which the Ministry of Labour decide. In that sense, surely the hon. Member would agree that the Regulations would go a great deal further than saying that the persons were disabled.

Mr. Silverman: I quite follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point and it is not in conflict with what I have been saying. Nobody in the Committee believes that the Government should not have the power to impose conditions. Everybody concedes that to be the case. The argument that has been advanced has been whether the conditions which the Government are expected to make should be done by one kind of Regulation or another kind. The Debate narrows down to that very small point, and what I have been saying so far is that the dangers which have been in the minds of many speakers cannot possibly arise under Regulations made under Clause 7 because those conditions would be in conflict with Clause 1 and, therefore, ultra vires.

Mr. Hutchinson: Surely it is possible to make a Regulation which would exclude a large number of disabled persons from being put on the register at all. That is the point.

Mr. Silverman: So would any form of Regulation, and so it would under the Amendment too. The remedy would be to oppose such a Regulation on the Floor of this House. It comes back to the same point. Nobody says that conditions should not be imposed and nobody, so far, has said that all the conditions should or could be in the Bill. It therefore follows that we are unanimous that conditions should be imposed, and that they


should be imposed by Regulation, and the only thing about which we differ is as to the kind of Regulation. That seems to be quite clear. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If it is not, perhaps some hon. Member will let us know. There is no form of Regulation under the Clause as it stands which cannot be attacked in the House. From the point of view of controlling the Government's power to make Regulations, the power of the House is just as great ultimately under one form of Regulation as under the other. The machinery is different, and that is all. It seems to me that a great deal of fuss and bother have been made about very little, and I would like to see the Committee get on with the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: It seems to me that further explanation is required of the words contained in the Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) appears to see no limitation in this Clause, or so I understood him to say, and I think he challenged any hon. Member to show that there was some restriction.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to go off on a false premise. So far from saying that there was no restriction I said that everybody who had participated in the Debate so far had agreed that there had to be conditions and that the Government must have power to make them.

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not fortifying his case in the least. Surely the point is that the purpose of the Measure is to provide vocational training for disabled persons. There is no dispute about that—or is there? An hon. Member says that it is only one of the things. Very well, it is a primary object. [Interruption.] All right, I am very accommodating, so I will say that it is one of the primary objects of the Measure to provide vocational training preparatory to employment. Reference is made in the Clause to conditions. What are those conditions? They are of a very wide character, as has been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member. I take it he stands by it and also by their limiting character, because reference is made to disqualification from entry on the register. What are the conditions which would justify the Minister making a Regulation

disqualifying any disabled person from appearing on the register for the purpose of undertaking vocational training preparatory to employment? That is the point.

Mr. Messer: This is for employment, not vocational training.

Mr. Shinwell: It makes no difference at all. If it is for employment it is just the same. The intention is to provide employment for disabled persons. Very well, what is the reason for disqualification under certain conditions? Can the Minister explain that? If there was a clear explanation as to the nature of the disqualifications which prevent entry to the register perhaps the Committee would be in a position to appreciate the point, but I gather so far as I have heard the Debate that no hon. Member understands the reason for this limiting condition. When we have that explained to us we shall know where we stand. The only other point I would like to put to my right hon. Friend is this: This Bill is intended to fortify the spirits of those who are now disabled, and to encourage those who may be disabled. One way of doing it is to present them with legislation couched in the clearest possible language. I must confess I have had the greatest difficulty—I ascribe it to my own incompetence—in understanding the meaning of the words which I shall read, and one can imagine what a disabled person would make of them:
The Minister may make regulations prescribing matters which are to constitute conditions of, or disqualifications from, the entry in the register of the names of any persons, either generally or in particular circumstances.
I must confess that to me that is Greek, and I imagine it might even appear to be more profound and disturbing to people who are not so fortunately situated. I would beg my right hon. Friend first to clear up the point regarding this limiting condition of disqualification, to indicate for whom it is intended, if indeed there are to be any disqualifications at all. Who are the persons likely to be affected, because let us make it quite clear that if disabled ex-Servicemen are likely to be disqualified on any ground whatever there will be a serious disturbance in the minds of those people, and I imagine hon. Members will feel disquiet. The first thing is to remove any doubt there may be in the minds of hon. Members and then to see if we can-


not formulate a more simple form of words, to see whether this cannot be clarified.

Mr. A. Bevan: Will the Minister when replying be good enough to answer my suggestion that the difficulty might be got over if in the Schedule to the Bill the conditions which he prescribes should be set out? It is no use for Members to argue that these words are not extremely wide in their application. Let them read tower down. The first thing a man has to do to be qualified is to be disabled. He must be disabled. He cannot come into the picture at all until he has been disabled. Then a whole series of events, conditions, entirely unknown conditions at the moment, may have to be satisfied before he enters the register. To read lower down, under Sub-section (2) (a) of Clause 7:
If the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a disabled person and that his disablement is likely to continue for six months or more from the time of the entry of his name in the register——

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. I am not quite clear whether we are on this Amendment and the succeeding Amendment connected with it.

The Chairman (Major Milner): The Amendment we are discussing is that on page 3, line 19, and not the related one.

Mr. Bevan: Sub-section (2) (a) defines what the first part of Sub-section (1) of Clause 7 is actually doing because it says:
if the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a disabled person and that his disablement is likely to continue for six months or more from the time of the entry of his name in the register, that any prescribed condition as to the entry of names in the register applicable to him is satisfied—
That is the first point, the point the Committee is now dealing with. He must now satisfy that other condition in addition to being disabled. What that other condition means no one knows; neither does the applicant for entry into the register know nor will he know until the regulation is issued and, after it is made, if it is modified from time to time. I think my hon. Friend is pressing his point too far. I am not arguing that if the Amendment were carried our grievance would be redressed. That often happens in Committee in the House, that an Amendment is often a peg upon which a grievance is

hung, and it is for the Government and the Parliamentary draftsmen to put our intentions into proper language if we convince the Committee that these things should be carried out. I am not saying that this Amendment is the proper vehicle for our purpose.

Mr. Silverman: Surely it is not a vehicle at all for doing what my hon. Friend wants. I should have no objection to the principle, if it were practically possible, of putting into the Schedule all prescribed conditions. All I say is that it has nothing to do with this Amendment and that this Amendment takes not a single step on that road.

Mr. Bevan: That is what I would say. That is why I interrupted. I said that it frequently happens that that is the case and that if it is the case it is for the Government to assist the House if the Committee convince the Government that something ought to be done, that the Committee's intentions should be carried out in an appropriate Amendment or some other way. I suggested a Schedule to the Bill. If one goes on reading, one will see if
he is not subject to any prescribed disqualification …
So in fact there is another condition we do not know. The original words in Clause 1 of the Bill are likely to be profoundly modified by any regulations the Minister may issue. I say that that being the case it is a situation which we ought not to allow to pass without having some idea of what these modified conditions are to be. I do not take the same attitude of my hon. Friend towards delegated legislation. Delegated legislation is in principle an evil and ought to be restricted as much as possible and only to be allowed where there is no other convenient way of doing a particular thing, but to argue that delegated legislation necessarily arms the Executive to deal effectively with certain vested interests that might otherwise use the House of Commons is an argument that the House of Commons ought to be abolished because vested interests could be dealt with by a corporate State.
The most effective instrument for dealing with vested interests outside the House should be a democratic and independent House of Commons, not powers vested in the Executive which they might use furtively and tyrannically. We ought to be satisfied in this particular instance that


these delegated powers are necessary. I urge my hon. Friends on this side of the House in particular with regard to this kind of legislation that we ought not to allow delegated powers, that ordinary working class people ought to know their rights by looking up the original Bill. They ought not to have their rights cut away or enlarged by action of the Executive without knowing anything about it. If my suggestion about the Schedule were adopted it would do the whole job, the House would understand it, people outside would understand it and it would save time.

Earl Winterton: I would ask the Government whether they would accept a Motion "That the Chairman do report

Progress and ask leave to sit again." It is obvious that we cannot dispose of this matter in a few minutes. There has been an important question about the Dominions which has not been answered, and I would ask the Government whether they would accept my suggestion. We cannot deal with the matter in five minutes.
Motion made and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain McEwen.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]